Aesthetic Device Safety Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The five leading assignees hold 107 of 294 records in scope (36.4%), and the leading ten hold 165 (56.1%) — a dense core with a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants behind it.
- Filing kept climbing through 2024. Filings rose from 25 in 2021 to 28 in 2024, up 12% over that span — the last complete year before publication lag makes 2025-2026 look artificially thin.
- Medicinal-preparation claims dominate the technology mix. A61K covers 58.8% of the 294 records, well ahead of A61P therapeutic-activity claims (29.9%) and A61B diagnosis/surgery claims (27.2%), pointing to where the claim space is most occupied.
Filing growth compares 2021 (25 records) with 2024 (28) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 294 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent activity at the intersection of device safety controls and skin-typing methodology in aesthetic and dermatological treatment: epidermal cooling, skin phototype classification, and laser fluence settings, cross-referenced against safety and regulatory mechanics such as adverse event rate tracking, test spot protocols, cooling protection, device setting controls, informed consent documentation and regulatory class designation. The scope spans 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off.
The 294 records in scope sit mostly in medicinal-preparation and therapeutic-activity classifications rather than pure device mechanics, which tells filers that a meaningful share of the claim space is being built around the pharmacological and treatment-protocol side of safety, not only the hardware that delivers energy to skin.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 294 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings moved from 7 in 2017 to a peak of 28 in 2024, with 2021-2024 alone showing a 12% rise. 2025 and 2026 figures are undercounted because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months — treat the tail of the chart as incomplete, not as a slowdown.
IPC subclass composition
A61K (medicinal preparations) appears in 58.8% of the 294 records, followed by A61P (therapeutic activity, 29.9%) and A61B (diagnosis and surgery, 27.2%). A61N electrotherapy/radiation claims sit at 16.7% and A61Q cosmetics-use claims at 16.3%. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100% and should be read as claim-space occupation, not a partition of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 294 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Aesthetic Device Safety and Skin Typing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about aesthetic device safety and skin typing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this space
System and method of combined tissue imaging and image-guided laser therapy
A system and method for combined tissue imaging and image-guided laser therapy is provided. The apparatus has one or more imaging modalities and lasers that are controlled by a controller. The setting configuration of the laser is determined by the location of designated boundaries and the structures of the target tissue that have been imaged. Intra-operative imaging of the target tissue allows a real time evaluation of the laser administration and determines the laser configuration if the contemporary images indicate a re-treatment is necessary. Over treatment and under treatment by the laser is avoided by image-directed laser ablation or non-ablative laser therapy.Filed by The Regents of the University of California, published 2016-11-03.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20120226268A1 | Radiation-Based Dermatological Devices and Methods | 111 |
| 2 | US9308391B2 | Radiation-based dermatological devices and methods | 77 |
| 3 | US8523849B2 | Radiation-based dermatological devices and methods | 75 |
| 4 | US20140005756A1 | Radiation-Based Dermatological Devices and Methods | 51 |
| 5 | WO2012106678A1 | Radiation-based dermatological devices and methods | 46 |
| 6 | WO2017029647A1 | Tetracycline management of EGFR inhibitor associated dermatoses | 41 |
| 7 | US20120232536A1 | Radiation-Based Dermatological Devices and Methods | 32 |
| 8 | US20180185667A1 | Method and apparatus for brain function enhancement | 31 |
| 9 | US20120232539A1 | Radiation-Based Dermatological Devices and Methods | 29 |
| 10 | US20070270785A1 | Light beam wavelength mixing for hair removal | 29 |
Citation counts reflect influence inside this searched corpus and skew toward older filings — a high count signals a foundational reference, not that the claim is still the most commercially relevant one.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
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 →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 →What the numbers mean for filing strategy
Three signals stand out once the assignee, trend and IPC data are read together.
A dense top tier, then a long tail
The leading five assignees combined account for 107 of the 294 records in scope, and the leading ten reach 165 — 56.1% of the field. Below that tier the ranking thins quickly into single- and few-filing entrants, which is where freedom-to-operate analysis needs the most care rather than the least.
Growth held through the last complete filing year
Filings rose from 25 in 2021 to 28 in 2024, the most recent year that can be treated as complete given an approximate 18-month publication lag. Several of the historically leading assignees show zero filings in the latest recorded year, consistent with a maturing core rather than an active pullback.
Medicinal-preparation claims dominate
A61K classifications appear across 58.8% of records, ahead of A61P (29.9%) and A61B (27.2%). A61N electrotherapy and A61Q cosmetics-use claims trail at 16.7% and 16.3% respectively, suggesting the hardware and cosmetic-use layers carry comparatively less claim density than the pharmacological and therapeutic layers.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to aesthetic device safety and skin typing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the collaboration is
The assignee ranking spans 100 companies drawn from the 294 records in scope, ordered by family count. Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with the strongest pairing filing together nine times — evidence of institutional partnerships rather than isolated single-inventor activity in parts of this field.
One assignee well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 51 records, more than four times the fifth-place count of 13 — an unusually wide gap for a leader position and a strong signal of where the deepest prior-art search should start.
A tight cluster just below the leader
Positions five and ten sit close together at 13 and 11 records, showing a genuine mid-tier rather than a sharp cliff after the leader — several organisations are filing at comparable, moderate volume.
University pairings drive joint filing
The strongest co-assignee pairs in this dataset are university-affiliated, with one pairing appearing together nine times. This points to academic-industry or academic-academic collaboration as a meaningful route into this space alongside solo corporate filing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Galderma Research & Development SNC | 0 | — |
| TRIA BEAUTY INC | 0 | — |
| FA CORP | 0 | — |
| Union Therapeutics AS | 0 | — |
| HUANG LI | 0 | — |
| Dermira Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Board of Regents, The University of Texas System | 0 | — |
| Trince BV | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The landscape data points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing or new filing.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the top tier
With 56.1% of records held by the leading ten assignees, any new device or protocol touching cooling, fluence or phototype classification should be checked against that concentrated core before drafting claims.
Explore in EurekaInvestigate the under-claimed branches
Digital consent capture, automated test-spot scoring and regulatory self-certification show comparatively thin claim density relative to the core A61K/A61P/A61B classes — worth a deeper prior-art pull before committing to a filing strategy.
Explore in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee leads clearly with 51 of the 294 records in scope, more than four times the fifth-place count of 13. The leading five assignees together hold 107 records (36.4% of the field) and the leading ten hold 165 (56.1%), so the field is concentrated at the top with a long tail of entrants filing only a handful of records each. Anyone entering this space should check that leader's portfolio first before drafting new claims.
Filings rose from 25 in 2021 to 28 in 2024, a 12% increase over that span, with 2024 the peak year in the dataset. Figures for 2025 and 2026 appear lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than an actual slowdown. The last year that can be read as a complete signal is 2024, and it shows continued growth, not contraction.
A61K medicinal-preparation classifications appear in 58.8% of the 294 records, the highest of any IPC subclass tracked, followed by A61P therapeutic-activity claims at 29.9% and A61B diagnosis-and-surgery claims at 27.2%. A61N electrotherapy/radiation and A61Q cosmetics-use claims trail at 16.7% and 16.3%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC codes, these percentages describe claim-space occupation rather than a strict breakdown of the field.
Sub-areas such as real-time phototype classification via imaging, automated test-spot adverse-event scoring, digital informed-consent workflows and regulatory-class self-certification tools show comparatively thin filing activity relative to the dense core of cooling, fluence and phototype claims. High density in A61K and A61P does not mean those areas are exhausted, but it does mean new entrants there face more prior art to design around. The thinner branches are a more promising starting point for a first claim.
That record and its family members (including US9308391B2, US8523849B2 and related filings) are the most-cited in this dataset, with the top entry cited 111 times, indicating they are frequently referenced as prior art in radiation-based dermatological device filings. High citation counts inside a searched corpus tend to favour older, foundational records rather than the most commercially active claims today, so treat this as a signal of influence on the field's vocabulary and structure, not a ranking of current relevance. Any new filing touching radiation-based dermatological methods should still review this family closely given how often it is cited.
Research Aesthetic Device Safety and Skin Typing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole aesthetic device safety and skin typing corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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 inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. 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, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently 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.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.