The oldest document in Cardiosense's file predates the company by thirteen years
Cardiosense holds 3 patent families: 0 granted and 3 published and pending. Filing began in 2007, with the most recent published filing dated 2025-09-03. The families appear in 1 patent office: PCT.Patent figures from Google Patents Public Data, reviewed 2026-09-14. Funding: $26.1M round, Hatteras Venture Partners, Portal Innovations and OSF Ventures, 2026-08-24.
A 2020 startup closes $26.1M and holds three patent families, none granted. One of those families was filed in 2007. The question is whether an old priority date and four large citing companies add up to a defensible position before the first grant lands.
Money arrives, the file stays small
Cardiosense raised $26.1M from Hatteras Venture Partners, Portal Innovations and OSF Ventures. The company was founded in 2020 and describes itself as a digital biomarker platform: multi-sensor devices plus proprietary algorithms, aimed at catching disease early. That is a hardware and software claim at once, and it usually implies a patent file with some weight behind it.
The file has three families. Not thirty. Three. All published, all pending, none granted, all filed through the WO route. The filing years are 2007, 2024 and 2025. One document, then a gap of seventeen years, then two in consecutive years. The money and the recent filings arrive together. The first filing arrives from somewhere else entirely, and that is where the story starts.
Everything is still in the queue
The granted side of the record is empty. Nothing in this portfolio is enforceable today. Three published applications sit pending, and the oldest of them is far enough along that it could grant at any time. The expected window for the first grants is around 2026, which means the company is spending its round in the period where its claims are visible to everyone and binding on no one.
Publication is not nothing. A published application in 2007 fixes a date. It marks what the inventors believed about cardio-respiratory sensing before the wearable market existed in its current form. For an examiner, and for anyone reading the art later, that date is the fact that does the work. The narrow ribbon on the granted side is a timing problem, not a substance problem, provided the claims survive.
The file is visible to everyone and binding on no one.
Three names, carried across seventeen years
Seven inventors are named across the three families. The distribution is not flat. Andrew M Carek appears on two of the three. So does Venu G Ganti. So does Omer T Inan. The 2024 and 2025 filings are titled for determining physiological information, including handheld and implantable devices, and for analyzing and presenting it. The 2007 filing is titled for determining cardio-respiratory state.
That is one technical question asked three times, decades apart, by an overlapping set of people. The recent titles extend the old one rather than replace it: from state determination to the devices that carry it and the interfaces that present it. A file this small is usually read as thin. Read by inventor overlap instead, it reads as continuous. The same hands, the same problem, a long pause in the middle.
Six giants stand in the same room
The claims cluster in A61B, diagnosis and surgery. Over the last five years the same CPC groups drew Philips with 686 families, Samsung with 644, Biosense Webster Israel with 388, Zhejiang University with 372, Medtronic with 289 and Huawei with 282. Against those figures three pending applications do not register as a shape on the chart. A same-week neighbour in A61B5, Matter, sits in the same territory.
Crowding changes what matters. In an empty field, count is a proxy for coverage. In a field this dense, count is noise and claim scope is the whole argument. What a large filer holds in A61B is broad and shallow across a product range. What a three-family file can hold, if the claims come through intact, is narrow and specific to one measurement approach. Those are different instruments.
Who read the file before the round
Masimo cites this work in 19 publications. Fitbit in 15. Welch Allyn in 5. Verily Life Sciences in 4. Nihon Kohden in 4. These are examiners and drafters at companies with substantial physiological sensing programmes reaching back and marking this art as relevant to their own. Citation is not permission and not a dispute. It is a record of attention.
Attention at that volume, pointed at a file with one old family in it, tells you the 2007 disclosure landed somewhere useful. It sat in the art for years and kept being found. That is the asset Cardiosense is now building on with its 2024 and 2025 filings, and it is the reason a three-family portfolio in a crowded class is worth reading carefully rather than dismissing on count.
Citation is not permission and not a dispute. It is a record of attention.
What the next twelve months decide
Hiring points the same direction as the filings. Fifty open roles: 21 in bio and clinical, 13 other, 7 in software and AI, 6 in hardware, 2 in operations and finance, 1 in go-to-market. That is a company building evidence and devices, not a company building distribution. Expect the next filings to sit in the same claim space as the last two.
So the position is this. An early priority date, a continuous inventor group, heavy citation from large sensing companies, and no granted claims yet in a class where six organisations file hundreds of families a year. The moat is real and it is not yet load-bearing. Everything turns on what scope the first grant carries when it arrives, and how quickly the 2024 and 2025 families follow it.
Is the position load-bearing yet, or only promising?
Three things could each be read as proof that this portfolio holds. None of them is sufficient on its own, because an old date, a busy inventor group and heavy citation can all coexist with claims that narrow to nothing at allowance.
Three applications and a date
Nothing is enforceable and nothing yet distinguishes the file from the surrounding art. The position rests entirely on what examiners allow.
What the next twelve months decide
When the first grant issues, does the allowed claim scope still cover cardio-respiratory state determination broadly, or only a specific sensor arrangement?
Do the 2024 and 2025 families generate continuations, or does the file stay at three?
Does the 2007 priority date carry forward into the recent families, or do they stand on their own dates?
Do the 21 bio and clinical hires produce clinical evidence that shows up as new filings in the same A61B groups?
Following those four would tell you whether Cardiosense is building a narrow position it can hold or a set of disclosures the crowd will simply file around.
Common questions
How many patents does Cardiosense have?
Cardiosense holds 3 patent families as reviewed in 2026-09: 0 granted and 3 published and pending.
How many of Cardiosense's patents are granted?
None of the 3 families have granted yet. On typical pendency the first grants would be expected around 2026.
What technology do Cardiosense's patents cover?
Cardiosense's claims cluster in diagnosis and surgery (A61B). Recent filing titles include "systems, devices, and methods for determining physiological information, including handheld and implantable devices" and "systems, devices, and methods for analyzing and presenting physiological information".
Where has Cardiosense filed patents?
Cardiosense's families appear in 1 patent office: PCT.
Which companies file patents in the same areas as Cardiosense?
The same CPC groups drew Philips, Samsung, Biosense Webster Israel and Zhejiang University over the last five years. Shared classification indicates a common technology field rather than direct competition.
Who cites Cardiosense's patents?
Patent records from Masimo, Fitbit, Welch Allyn and Verily Life Sciences cite Cardiosense's filings. A citation indicates a reference to the work, not evidence of commercial use.
Who invented Cardiosense's patents?
7 inventors are named across the portfolio. The most frequently named is Andrew M Carek. Inventor names do not establish ownership, which is determined by assignment records.
GET IN TOUCH NOW!
OR SCHEDULE A MEETING
