Augmented Reality Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 22.8% concentration at the very top. The five leading assignees combined account for 22.8% of all 150,871 records in scope, while a long tail of ranked entrants files far less.
- Filing has cooled from its 2022 peak. Annual filings fell from 2,236 in 2021 to 1,487 in 2024, a 33% decline over that span, after peaking at 2,533 in 2022.
- Momentum is dropping even among the leaders. Recent-year filings by several top assignees are down sharply year over year, suggesting consolidation of existing claims rather than a fresh filing wave.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2,236 records) with 2024 (1,487) — 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 150,871 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the augmented reality patent record actually shows
Augmented reality patenting spans optics, display hardware, pose tracking, content delivery and the software layers that stitch virtual content onto a live view. The dataset behind this page covers 150,871 published records filed between 2015 and 2026, drawn from a search that pairs AR-specific terms with the interaction, delivery and tracking language that separates a working system from a bare display concept. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one or two years in any trend understate real filing activity.
Reading this landscape well means separating where claim density is high because the ground is genuinely occupied from where it is high simply because filers have crowded a fashionable term. The sections below work through assignee concentration, technology composition by IPC subclass, filing momentum, and the most-cited prior art shaping freedom to operate.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views matter here: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the most records. Both are drawn directly from the 150,871 records in scope, with no re-weighting.
Filing trend: a 2022 peak, then a real pullback
Annual filings rose from 1,420 in 2017 to a peak of 2,533 in 2022, then declined to 1,487 by 2024 — a 33% drop from the 2021 figure of 2,236 over that three-year span. Years after 2024 are still filling in under publication lag and should not be read as a continuation of the decline.
Technology composition: image processing and general computing dominate
G06T (image data processing and generation) and G06F (electric digital data processing) each cover roughly 6.5-6.7% of the 150,871 records, well ahead of optics (G02B, 2.7%) and pictorial communication (H04N, 2.3%). Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up past 100% and should be read as relative weight, not as a partition of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 150,871 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Augmented Reality Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about augmented reality patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records shaping freedom to operate
Systems and methods for updating a non-augmented reality display with user interactions in an augmented reality display
Systems and methods are provided for generating an augmented reality display for users of augmented reality devices. Features provided in the AR displays may be used to update a non-augmented reality display. In addition, interactions in the AR displays may also be incorporated into the non-augmented reality display.Filed by Adeia Guides Inc., published 2025-01-09 — illustrates how recent filings target the interaction bridge between an AR view and a conventional display rather than the AR optics themselves.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20160026253A1 | Methods and systems for creating virtual and augmented reality | 3,436 |
| 2 | US20100030578A1 | System and method for collaborative shopping, business and entertainment | 2,227 |
| 3 | US20130278631A1 | 3D positioning of augmented reality information | 2,103 |
| 4 | US20150016777A1 | Planar waveguide apparatus with diffraction element(s) and system employing same | 2,065 |
| 5 | US20150205126A1 | Virtual and augmented reality systems and methods | 1,973 |
| 6 | US20130127980A1 | Video display modification based on sensor input for a see-through near-to-eye display | 1,897 |
| 7 | US20150178939A1 | Virtual and augmented reality systems and methods | 1,382 |
| 8 | US20130117377A1 | System and Method for Augmented and Virtual Reality | 1,324 |
| 9 | US20120127062A1 | Automatic focus improvement for augmented reality displays | 1,286 |
| 10 | US20140306866A1 | System and method for augmented and virtual reality | 1,280 |
Citation counts favour older filings inside a searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a measure of current commercial relevance.
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 data means for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are broken down: where the field is genuinely crowded, where citation influence sits with older art, and where recent momentum has thinned out even among the largest holders.
The top five hold a real but partial lead
The five leading assignees combined account for 22.8% of all records in scope, rising to 37.7% across the top ten. That leaves the large majority of filings spread across a long tail of the remaining ranked entrants, so a competitor map built only on the leaders misses most of the field.
Image processing carries more claim density than optics
G06T (image data processing and generation) and G06F (electric digital data processing) each sit near 6.5-6.7% of records, ahead of the optical-hardware class G02B at 2.7%. That gap suggests the software and rendering layer of AR is more heavily claimed than the display optics themselves.
Filing has pulled back from its 2022 peak
After peaking at 2,533 filings in 2022, annual volume fell to 1,487 by 2024, a 33% decline from 2021's 2,236. Several of the largest assignees show sharp year-over-year drops in their most recent filing year, consistent with consolidation around existing claims rather than new investment in fresh applications.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to augmented reality patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where filings have gone quiet
The ranked leaders sit across device makers, platform owners and optics specialists rather than a single industry segment. Recent-year momentum has dropped for most of the largest filers, which points to portfolios being defended rather than expanded.
The top assignee holds a clear but not dominant lead
The leading assignee's 7,974 records place it well ahead of fifth place at 5,757 and tenth place at 3,981, but the gap narrows quickly down the ranking, indicating no single company controls the field outright.
Even active filers have slowed sharply
Several assignees among the largest filers show steep year-over-year drops in their latest filing year, with declines ranging from roughly -52% to -96% at individual companies. That pattern is consistent across device, platform and optics-focused filers alike.
Co-filing is present but limited
The dataset surfaces ten recurring co-assignee pairs, with the strongest pairs each appearing on a handful of shared records. This points to occasional joint development, particularly between device makers and university research arms, rather than a broad pattern of industry collaboration.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Snap Inc. | 31 | -84% |
| Qualcomm Inc. | 10 | -52% |
| Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC | 6 | -79% |
| Magic Leap, Inc. | 2 | -96% |
| Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | 1 | -67% |
| Intellectual Ventures Portfolio 2016 LLC | 1 | -67% |
| Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korea) | 1 | -92% |
| Apple Inc. | 1 | -96% |
Where to take this analysis next
The landscape above is a starting point for scoping freedom-to-operate work or identifying acquisition targets. The next layer of detail depends on what decision is being made.
Map claims against a specific product architecture
Run the optics, tracking and delivery claims from the most-cited records against a specific AR device or software stack to see which elements are already covered and which are open.
Explore in Eureka →Track momentum by individual assignee
Year-over-year filing drops vary widely across the largest holders; watching individual assignee momentum over the next few publication cycles will show who is still investing.
Explore in Eureka →Test claim language in the under-claimed branches
The gate chips above point to sub-areas with thinner claim density; drafting a first claim there and checking it against the full corpus is a fast way to test whether the gap is real or just under-indexed.
Explore in Eureka →Common questions about the augmented reality patent landscape
The ranked assignee list is led by a company holding 7,974 records, with the top five combined accounting for 22.8% of all 150,871 records in scope and the top ten reaching 37.7%. The leaders span device makers, platform and software companies, and optics specialists rather than one single segment. Beyond the top ten, filings spread across a long tail of the remaining ranked entrants, so competitive mapping should not stop at the largest names.
Filing peaked at 2,533 records in 2022 and had fallen to 1,487 by 2024, a 33% decline from the 2021 figure of 2,236. That is a genuine pullback over a three-year span that can be treated as complete data. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still filling in because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so it is too early to read those years as confirming or reversing the trend.
Image data processing and generation (IPC class G06T) and general electric digital data processing (G06F) each cover roughly 6.5-6.7% of the 150,871 records in scope, ahead of optical elements and systems (G02B) at 2.7% and pictorial communication (H04N) at 2.3%. Because records often carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages overlap rather than summing to a whole field. The pattern suggests the software and rendering layer is more densely claimed than the optical hardware layer.
US20250014288A1, assigned to Adeia Guides Inc. and published 2025-01-09, covers systems and methods for updating a conventional, non-augmented-reality display using interactions that occur within an augmented reality display. It sits at the interaction bridge between AR and standard viewing rather than in the optics or tracking hardware itself. Anyone building features that carry AR-sourced interaction data back into a conventional display interface should review its claims specifically.
The technology composition data shows comparatively thin claim density in areas like waveguide diffraction efficiency tuning, cross-device pose hand-off, and codec-level bitstream adaptation for AR content delivery, relative to the heavily claimed image-processing and general computing classes. These are not proven gaps, but they are areas where the current record counts are lower against the volume seen in G06T and G06F. First claims there should still be checked against the full corpus before assuming the space is genuinely open.
Research Augmented Reality Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole augmented reality patent landscape 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.