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 →46 patent families and 142 records on spatial transcriptomics tissue imaging, with filings split across 10 receiving offices worldwide.
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 In force = 28 of 142 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
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.
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.
Two views of the same 46 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
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.
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.
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%.
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%.
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 EurekaSystems 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.


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.
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 →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 →Three figures taken directly from the dataset, each reported on its own terms.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This page is a starting point built from one search string, not a finished freedom-to-operate review.
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 EurekaA 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 EurekaThis search returned 142 published records, which de-duplicate into 46 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. The search string sets no date limit, so this reflects whatever years the matching records happen to span, not a fixed reporting period. Because the underlying search terms shape what gets captured, a different string could return a different count from the same body of filings.
Two filers share the top count in this dataset: 10x Genomics Inc and Resolve Biosciences GmbH are each named on 4 of the 46 simple patent families (8.7% each). There is no single filer ahead of the other at this volume. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, and 28 of the 33 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so the volume here is spread thinly rather than concentrated in one name.
Measured against the 46 families, C12Q (measuring and testing involving enzymes or DNA) appears on 56.5%, G01N (material analysis and testing) on 37.0%, and C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) on 23.9%. These shares add up to more than 100% because a single family can carry more than one IPC subclass. The dataset includes other subclasses at lower shares that are not detailed here.
28 of the 142 published records (20%) were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remaining 80% cover a mix of pending applications, withdrawals, refusals, lapses and records whose status could not be determined, and that breakdown is not separated out in this dataset. Legal status changes continuously, so this figure is a snapshot rather than a fixed outcome.
The search returned 10 receiving offices in total, counted in published records, where one invention can appear once per office it was filed at. Among the largest, WIPO (PCT) accounts for 44 records, United States for 39, and Europe (EPO) for 30. These are filing locations for the records in this search, not an indicator of where any filer is based.
The filing trend shown here runs from 14 records filed in 2020 up to a peak of 32 in 2022, with years from 2022 onward still filling in as later publications arrive. Because publication can lag filing by 18 months or more, the recent years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a slowdown. With a dataset this size, year-to-year movement is better treated as noise than as a trend.
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.
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.
This page