Automated Storage & Retrieval Patents: Leaders & Filing Trends 2026
- Filings nearly doubled in three years — recorded filings grew from 35 in 2021 to 76 in 2024, a +117% rise, before the usual 18-month publication lag makes the most recent years look artificially quiet.
- The top 5 hold under a third — the five leading assignees account for 214 of 677 records (31.6%), leaving a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants across the ranked 100 companies.
- Conveying dominates the claim space — 71.3% of records sit in B65G (conveying and material handling), while control and data-processing classes each cover under 10% of the field.
Filing growth compares 2021 (35 records) with 2024 (76) — 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 677 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the automated storage and retrieval patent record shows
Automated storage and retrieval systems (ASRS) sit at the intersection of physical material handling and the software that schedules it. The 677 records in scope, filed between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off, span everything from rack-and-shuttle hardware to the query indexing and warehouse-management logic that routes goods through a facility. B65G conveying and material handling is the anchor classification, present in over seven of every ten records, which tells you the physical transport layer is still where most claim activity concentrates rather than the software layer around it.
Filing activity rose sharply through the early 2020s, peaking at 99 records in 2023, and the underlying growth from 2021 to 2024 was substantial. Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend chart understate real filing activity rather than signal a slowdown.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 677-record dataset: the pace of filing over time, and the IPC subclasses that carry the actual claim language.
A three-year growth run, then a lag effect
Filings climbed from 28 in 2017 to a peak of 99 in 2023, with the 2021-to-2024 span alone showing +117% growth (35 to 76 records). The drop-off visible in 2025 and 2026 reflects publication lag, not a cooling field.
Conveying hardware still anchors the field
B65G appears in 71.3% of records, more than double the next most common class, G06Q business and administrative data processing at 26.6%. Robotics (B25J), control systems (G05B, G05D) and digital processing (G06F) each sit in single digits, suggesting the software and robotics layers are comparatively less claim-dense relative to the physical transport layer.
Shares are the percentage of the 677 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Automated Storage & Retrieval Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about automated storage & retrieval patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in the field
US20230243567A1 — Automated storage and retrieval system and microclimate-controlled receptacles for pharmaceuticals
Filed by Dematic Corp, this record claims a control system paired with an ASRS storage rack in which receptacles or the rack itself are temperature-controlled, plus a transportation system moving those receptacles between storage and a workstation for order fulfilment. It extends conventional ASRS claim scope into cold-chain and pharmaceutical handling, an application area that has to coexist with, rather than replace, the conveying-heavy prior art the rest of the field sits on.Dematic Corp · published 2023-08-03
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20170043953A1 | Automated materials handling facility | 319 |
| 2 | US6652213B1 | Automated warehousing system and method | 317 |
| 3 | US6325586B1 | Automated storage and retrieval system | 214 |
| 4 | US20110106295A1 | Warehouse system and method for operating the same | 163 |
| 5 | US20210269244A1 | Automated warehouse system and method for optimized batch picking | 91 |
| 6 | US20240144141A1 | Systems, methods, kits, and apparatuses for using artificial intelligence for automation in value chain netwo… | 89 |
| 7 | US20200039747A1 | Automated warehouse fulfillment system and method of operation | 89 |
| 8 | US20190016543A1 | Apparatus and method for building a pallet load | 88 |
| 9 | US20170305668A1 | Warehouse system and transfer vehicle | 88 |
| 10 | US20050118003A1 | Automated warehouse row cart and lift | 79 |
Citation counts inside this corpus skew toward older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations — read them as a signal of influence on subsequent filers, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
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 filing strategy
Three findings from the dataset that should shape where a new filing targets claim language, and where it's likely to run into dense prior art.
Leadership is real but not overwhelming
The top 5 assignees combined hold 214 of 677 records, and the top 10 extend that to 336 records (49.6%). That leaves roughly half the field spread across a long tail of the ranked 100 companies — a structure that rewards a well-drafted claim more than it punishes a late entrant.
The field grew fast, then publication lag kicked in
Recorded filings rose from 35 in 2021 to 76 in 2024. The apparent decline after that is a publication-lag artefact — filings made in 2025 and 2026 simply have not all published yet — so treat the peak year of 99 (2023) as the most reliable recent signal of activity.
Physical handling claims dominate over software claims
B65G conveying and material handling appears in far more records than any data-processing or control class. G06Q, covering business and admin data processing such as warehouse management logic, sits at 26.6% — meaningful, but a distinctly smaller footprint than the hardware layer.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to automated storage & retrieval patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The assignee ranking is top-heavy but not closed. Recent-year momentum data shows even leading filers pulling back year-on-year, which is consistent with publication lag rather than retreat from the space.
A single leader, then a steep drop
The leading assignee holds 49 records against a fifth-place figure of 34 and a tenth-place figure of 18 — a fast taper that signals most of the ranked 100 companies hold only a handful of families each.
Recent-year counts understate real activity
Multiple leading assignees show 0 filings in the latest year with -100% year-on-year figures. Given the 18-month publication lag, this reflects records still working through the pipeline rather than an actual halt in filing.
Collaboration is limited and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest pairings clustering around a single major logistics filer and named individual inventors — suggesting most filers in this field patent independently rather than through joint ventures.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Dematic Corp | 1 | — |
| Symbotic LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Symbotic Canada ULC | 0 | -100% |
| Strong Force VCN Portfolio 2019 LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Mycronic AB | 0 | — |
| NEWTEQ HLDG BV | 0 | -100% |
| Lineage Logistics LLC | 0 | -100% |
| California Natural Products | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, whitespace filing, or competitive tracking.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top-cited records
The five most-cited records, several tied to Dematic and Symbotic filings, are the ones a new ASRS filing is most likely to be measured against during examination.
Explore citation network in EurekaDraft into the under-claimed control and data layers
G05D, G06F and H05K each cover under 10% of records despite the field's growth, which is a narrower base of prior art to design around than B65G.
Run a whitespace search in EurekaTrack momentum, not just rank
Several top-10 assignees show 0 filings in the latest year purely due to publication lag; re-checking momentum in a future data cut will separate genuine pullbacks from pipeline delay.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaCommon questions about automated storage and retrieval patents
The dataset's assignee ranking shows a single leading filer with 49 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked assignee at 34 and the tenth at 18. The top 5 assignees combined account for 214 of the 677 records in scope (31.6%), and the top 10 extend to 336 records (49.6%). That still leaves roughly half the field spread thinly across the remaining ranked companies, so leadership here is real but not a monopoly.
Recorded filings grew from 35 in 2021 to 76 in 2024, a +117% increase, with a peak of 99 records in 2023. Figures for 2025 and 2026 appear lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than an actual drop in activity. Treat 2023 and 2024 as the most reliable recent indicators of filing momentum.
B65G (conveying and material handling) is by far the dominant classification, appearing in 71.3% of the 677 records in scope. G06Q (business, commerce and administrative data processing, which covers warehouse management logic) follows at 26.6%. Robotics (B25J), control systems (G05B and G05D), lifting devices (B66F) and digital processing (G06F) each appear in under 10% of records, indicating the physical handling layer carries more claim density than the software and control layers.
Classes with lower record shares relative to the field's overall growth — including G05D (non-electric variable control), H05K (printed circuits and assemblies used in mobile storage robotics) and specific software areas like query-index schemas for warehouse search ranking — carry less claim density than the dominant B65G conveying class. A new filing targeting the control or data-schema layer around ASRS hardware, rather than the conveying mechanism itself, is likely to face a thinner prior-art base.
Citation counts in this corpus favour older filings because they have had more time to accumulate citations from later applicants; the most-cited record here dates back years and has had a longer window to be cited. They are a useful signal of which filings shaped the field's baseline claim language, but a low citation count on a recent filing does not mean it is unimportant — it may simply be too new to have been cited yet.
Research Automated Storage & Retrieval Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole automated storage & retrieval 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.