https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/spatial-transcriptomics-tissue-imaging-platform-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Diagnostics & Imaging

Spatial Transcriptomics Tissue Imaging Platform Patents

46 patent families and 142 records on spatial transcriptomics tissue imaging, with filings split across 10 receiving offices worldwide.

142
Published Records
46
Simple Patent Families
20%
In Force at Cut-off
WO
Leading Jurisdiction

142 published records collapse into 46 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 28 of 142 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • Two filers share the top count 10x Genomics Inc and Resolve Biosciences GmbH are each named on 4 of the 46 simple patent families in scope, with no single filer ahead of the other.
  • The filer list has a long tail 28 of the 33 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each.
  • Filings sit mostly in three IPC subclasses C12Q appears on 56.5%, G01N on 37.0% and C12N on 23.9% of the 46 families, with families often carrying more than one class.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This dataset gathers 142 published records, de-duplicated into 46 simple patent families, returned by a search for spatial transcriptomics tissue imaging platforms. The search string sets no date limit, so the set spans whatever years the matching records were filed in, and the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window of that span. Legal status was checked at retrieval: 28 of the 142 records (20%) were granted and still in force at that date.

With only 46 families in scope, this is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, and the page is best used as a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished map.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. 10X GENOMICS INC4
  2. RESOLVE BIOSCIENCES GMBH4
  3. 3D SYSTEMS INC3
  4. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO3
  5. ILLUMINA INC3
  6. ST JUDE CHILDRENS RES HOSPITAL INC2
  7. THE BROAD INST INC2
  8. QOMPLX INC2
  9. THE GENERAL HOSPITAL CORP2
  10. MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH2

Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (1 here); that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 30 of the 33 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 33 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Spatial Transcriptomics Tissue Imaging Platform Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 46 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

The chart runs from a 2020 count of 14 records up to a 2026 count of 9, with a peak of 32 records in 2022. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later publications arrive, so no rise or fall in this stretch should be read as a change in filing activity.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)0102030401420202021322022202320242025920262022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two.

IPC subclass coverage across the 46 families

C12Q (measuring and testing involving enzymes/DNA) appears on 56.5% of the 46 families, G01N (material analysis and testing) on 37.0%, and C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) on 23.9%. Families can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add up to more than 100%.

IPC subclass coverage across the 46 familiesC12Q · Measuring & testing involving …2656.5%G01N · Material analysis & testing1737.0%C12N · Microorganisms & genetic engin…1123.9%G16B · Bioinformatics613.0%G02B · Optical elements & systems510.9%B01L · Lab apparatus48.7%G06T · Image data processing & genera…48.7%G16H · Healthcare informatics48.7%Other2350.0%

Shares are the percentage of the 46 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Spatial Transcriptomics Tissue Imaging Platform Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Spatial Transcriptomics Tissue Imaging Platform Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about spatial transcriptomics tissue imaging platform patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example record

A record from the result set

First record returned, database default order
WO2026183178A12026-09-03

Predicting spatial transcriptomics from medical images

THE BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL, INC.

Systems and methods are provided for predicting spatial transcriptomics data from three-dimensional medical images. An imaging interface receives a three-dimensional image of a region of tissue from an imaging system, a three-dimensional image encoder extracts a low-dimensional embedding of at least a portion of the image as a set of token features, and a machine learning model, trained on pairs of images and spatial transcriptomic data representing the same region of interest, predicts spatial transcriptomic data for the region of tissue based on the set of token features.Shown as the first record returned by the search, not as the most cited, newest or broadest filing in scope. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself.

WO2026183178A1, patent drawing 1WO2026183178A1, patent drawing 2
View record WO2026183178A1

Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Spatial Transcriptomics Tissue Imaging Platform Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
Fastest

Eureka on the web

When you want the answer in the next five minutes.

The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.

Run your analysis now →
For builders

MCP server & REST API

When it has to run inside your own pipeline.

Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.

Browse MCP servers →
Dataset signals

What the figures show

Three figures taken directly from the dataset, each reported on its own terms.

Joint top filer count
4 of 46 families
8.7% share

Two filers tied at 4 families each

10x Genomics Inc and Resolve Biosciences GmbH are each named on 4 of the 46 simple patent families in scope (8.7% each). This is a count of named families, not a measure of claim scope or commercial activity.

Filer list, simple patent families
Spread across filers
28 of 33
filers on ≤2 families

Most listed filers hold 1-2 families

28 of the 33 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed filers are organisations only; individual filers were removed from the list but remain inside the totals.

Filer list, simple patent families
Legal status
28 of 142
records in force

20% of records were in force at retrieval

28 of the 142 published records (20%) were granted and still in force on the retrieval date. The remaining records cover pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined status, which is not broken out further here.

Legal status, published records
Receiving offices
10 offices
WIPO (PCT) largest at 44

Filings were lodged at 10 receiving offices

The search returned 10 receiving offices in total. The largest counts among the 6 shown are WIPO (PCT) with 44 records and United States with 39, each counted once per office a record was filed at, so these figures do not sum to the record total.

Receiving offices, published records
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to spatial transcriptomics tissue imaging platform patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Spatial Transcriptomics Tissue Imaging Platform Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this

This page is a starting point built from one search string, not a finished freedom-to-operate review.

Pull the granted claims

Family and filer counts cannot tell you what any single patent covers. Reading the granted claim set of records that matter to you is the only way to establish scope.

Open Patsnap Eureka

Widen or narrow the search string

A 46-family pool this small is sensitive to the exact terms used. Adjusting the search string in Patsnap Eureka can surface adjacent filings this query missed, or confirm this is the extent of what matches.

Refine the search in Patsnap Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Spatial Transcriptomics Tissue Imaging Platform Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Questions practitioners ask about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Spatial Transcriptomics Tissue Imaging Platform Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Spatial Transcriptomics Tissue Imaging Platform Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole spatial transcriptomics tissue imaging platform patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean

Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:

TAC:(("spatial transcriptomics") AND tissue AND (imaging OR platform))

Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field.

What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 142 records and 46 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.

Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list (1 of them here). Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 30 of the 33 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 33 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included

Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-15.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (28 of 142). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka

Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level

Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.

Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.

Patent data carries limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.

Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.

The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.