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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/ar-waveguide-optics-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · XR & Human InterfaceAR waveguide optics patents: who holds the exit pupil expander claims and where the field is still open
- Filings peaked in 2018 at 23 and have not returned to that level since — the field's densest year of claiming is already seven years behind the data cut-off, not ahead of it.
- One 2016-family patent on a compact projection light engine draws 398 citations — roughly ten times the next most-cited record, making it the reference point every combiner design gets measured against.
- Recent-year momentum has flattened across every major assignee tracked, including Applied Materials at -100% YoY — a sign that active families have shifted or gone quiet rather than that the technology is settled.
72
Published Records
88%
Top-5 Share of All Records
EP
Leading Jurisdiction
13
Active Filers Ranked
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 72 patent families filed against diffractive waveguide displays, augmented reality waveguide combiners, and AR optical combiners, filtered to claims touching field of view, eye box, rainbow artifact suppression, efficiency, or nanoimprint fabrication. Coverage runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off. Because publication lags filing by roughly eighteen months, the last one to two years in any trend chart will read lower than actual filing activity once those applications publish.
The IPC composition is heavily concentrated in <strong>G02B</strong>, the optical-elements subclass, with secondary claim activity in lighting components and a small amount of overlap into image processing and display control circuitry — evidence that this is still fundamentally an optics problem, not a software or rendering one.
Filing activity, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on AR Waveguide Optics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 72-family dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how claim activity distributes across IPC subclasses.
A single sharp peak, then a long flat tail
Filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 23 in 2018, then fell back toward a midpoint of 2 by 2022. That shape points to a burst of early defensive filing around a small number of foundational designs rather than a steadily growing field — later entrants are filing into space already staked out by the 2017-2019 cohort.
G02B dominates; adjacent subclasses are thin
All 72 records touch G02B (optical elements & systems), with 11 also classified under F21V (lighting components) and only a handful reaching into G06T, G09G or G06F. The near-absence of software-adjacent classification suggests most of the documented claim space is still about the physical grating and waveguide stack, not about rendering or eye-tracking integration.
Shares are the percentage of the 72 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on AR Waveguide Optics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on AR Waveguide Optics with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about ar waveguide optics and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The record everything else gets measured against
Representative Recent Filing
Efficiency-laddered cropped exit pupil expander for compact diffractive waveguides
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
Filed by Applied Materials, this application claims a waveguide combiner whose exit pupil expander uses a laddered structure of grating bands with varying depth, duty cycle, or pitch adjacent to the input coupler grating. The design targets efficiency gains in the EPE stage specifically, rather than the input or output coupler.Abstract trimmed for length; full claim language is available in the source record.
Most-cited records in this dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20160077338A1 | Compact Projection Light Engine For A Diffractive Waveguide Display | 398 |
| 2 | CN106716226A | 用于衍射波导显示器的紧凑型投影光引擎 | 37 |
| 3 | WO2016044193A1 | Compact projection light engine for a diffractive waveguide display | 25 |
| 4 | KR1020170055992A | Compact projection light engine for a diffractive waveguide display | 15 |
| 5 | CN110082907A | 一种光波导结构及显示装置 | 13 |
| 6 | WO2019122521A1 | Improved brightness waveguide display | 10 |
| 7 | US20200393609A1 | Optical waveguide and diffractive waveguide display | 6 |
| 8 | US20210088791A1 | Improved brightness waveguide display | 4 |
| 9 | US20200379259A1 | Interference-free waveguide display | 4 |
| 10 | US20220214487A1 | Optical element, image waveguide method, head-mounted display apparatus and diffractive waveguide display | 3 |
Citation counts favour older records within a searched corpus; treat this table as a map of influence, not of current filing activity.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on AR Waveguide Optics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
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 →Insights
What the numbers indicate for filing strategy
Three patterns worth acting on before drafting into this space.
Filing Trend
23 in 2018
peak year filings
The peak has passed, not arrived
Filing volume hit its high point in 2018 and dropped to a midpoint of 2 by 2022. New entrants are not filing into a growing field; they are filing into a mature stack of grating and coupler designs staked out nearly a decade ago.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Citation Concentration
398 citations
on the top record
One light engine design anchors the field
The most-cited record, a compact projection light engine for a diffractive waveguide display, draws roughly ten times the citations of the next-ranked family. Freedom-to-operate work in this space should start there, not with the most recent filings.
Most-cited records table
Receiving Offices
15 / 15 / 15
EPO, US, WIPO filings
Filing strategy is evenly split across three regimes
Europe, the United States and the WIPO PCT route each carry 15 records, with China, India and Taiwan trailing behind. That even three-way split suggests applicants are pursuing broad multi-jurisdiction protection rather than concentrating in one home market.
Receiving office distribution
Technology Mix
72 of 72
records classified under G02B
Optics, not software, still owns this claim space
Every record in the dataset touches G02B, with only marginal overlap into image processing or display control IPC codes. Claims are still being fought over the physical grating and waveguide stack rather than rendering or tracking software layered on top.
IPC composition
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 ar waveguide optics, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on AR Waveguide Optics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who holds the claim space, and where it is thin
Assignee activity has gone quiet across the board in the most recent tracked year — a pattern worth reading as pipeline lag or portfolio consolidation, not disengagement.
Co-filing Pattern
3 shared families
strongest co-assignee pair
One tight corporate pairing stands out
The strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset links two related Radiant Opto-Electronics entities across three shared families, consistent with a parent-subsidiary filing structure rather than an external collaboration.
Co-assignee pairs
Recent Momentum
-100% YoY
Applied Materials, latest year
Momentum has flattened across every tracked assignee
Every major assignee tracked, including Applied Materials, Microsoft, Google, Dispelix and both Radiant Opto-Electronics entities, shows zero filings in the latest tracked year. Given the eighteen-month publication lag, this likely understates real activity rather than confirming a slowdown.
Recent-year momentum by assignee
Field Composition
72 families
total in ranking
A long tail behind a small leading group
With 72 families spread across a handful of named assignees plus a long tail of single or few-filing entrants, the field has not consolidated around one or two dominant portfolio holders the way some optics categories have.
Assignee ranking
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Dispelix Oy | 0 | — |
| Applied Materials, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Radiant Opto-Electronics Corporation | 0 | — |
| Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | 0 | — |
| Google LLC | 0 | — |
| Radiant Opto-Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| WaveOptics Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on AR Waveguide Optics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy, or identifying open claim space.
Run freedom-to-operate against the top-cited family
Before drafting any exit pupil expander or coupler claim, check it against the compact projection light engine family that anchors this dataset's citation graph — it is the record most later filings had to design around.
Explore in EurekaTrack the quiet assignees for re-filing signals
Every major assignee shows zero filings in the latest tracked year. Given publication lag, monitoring these portfolios for delayed publications is more useful right now than assuming they have exited the space.
Set up monitoring in EurekaProbe the under-claimed branches directly
Rainbow artifact suppression and nanoimprint fabrication tolerance claims sit well behind the core G02B volume. A targeted search in either branch is likely to surface less crowded claim space than a general waveguide combiner search.
Search white space in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on AR Waveguide Optics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about AR waveguide optics patents
The single most influential record in this dataset is a compact projection light engine for a diffractive waveguide display, cited 398 times — far ahead of any other family tracked. Beyond that top record, filing activity is spread across a group of named assignees including Applied Materials, Microsoft, Google, Dispelix, and Radiant Opto-Electronics, alongside a long tail of smaller filers. No single assignee dominates the full 72-family set the way a top-cited record might suggest; influence and filing volume are concentrated in different places.
No, not based on this dataset. Filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 23 in 2018, then declined back down to a midpoint of 2 by 2022. Because publication lags filing by around eighteen months, the very latest years will always look artificially low, but the overall shape is a spike followed by a flat tail rather than sustained growth.
Rainbow artifact suppression coatings, nanoimprint fabrication tolerances, eye box uniformity at wide field of view, and multi-layer waveguide stack alignment all carry noticeably fewer classified records than the core exit pupil expander and input/output coupler claims. These sit adjacent to the dense G02B filing activity but have not attracted the same volume of claims, making them worth a closer look for anyone drafting new applications rather than contesting the crowded core.
Europe (EPO), the United States, and the WIPO PCT route each carry 15 records in this dataset, making them the three leading receiving offices by an even margin. China follows with 8, India with 7, and Taiwan with 4. The even three-way split across EPO, US, and PCT suggests most serious applicants in this space are pursuing broad multi-jurisdiction coverage from the outset rather than filing narrowly in a single home market first.
Not necessarily. Citation counts inside a searched patent corpus tend to favour older records simply because they have had more time to be cited by later filings, so the 398-citation compact projection light engine family reflects historical influence on the field's design language more than current commercial relevance. It remains the right starting point for freedom-to-operate work precisely because so many later designs reference it, but a lower citation count on a recent filing does not mean it is less important going forward.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on AR Waveguide Optics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research AR Waveguide Optics in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole ar waveguide optics 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.