Brain-Computer Interface Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 31.1% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees account for 1,435 of 4,614 records in scope — a concentrated core, but with 90 more ranked assignees behind them holding smaller, defensible positions.
- Filing has kept growing, not fallen off. From 2021 to 2024 — the last year publication lag lets us call complete — filings rose 7%, from 273 to 293, even as 2025-26 figures are still filling in.
- Signal-side claims dominate; imaging and AI classes trail. A61B (diagnosis & surgery) and A61N (electrotherapy) each cover roughly three in ten of all 4,614 records, while G06T image processing and G06N AI-model classes each sit under 8%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (273 records) with 2024 (293) — 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 4,614 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this dataset covers
The search combines core brain-computer interface terminology — neural interface, brain machine interface — with the signal and media-processing language that defines how these systems actually move data: codec bitstream, frame rate, pose tracking, signal processing. That intersection captures records where neural signal acquisition meets consumer-facing output, rather than pure neuroscience instrumentation or pure media codecs filed separately.
4,614 records span 2015 through the August 2026 data cut-off, filed across the United States, the EPO, WIPO's PCT route, Germany, Austria and India. The mix of receiving offices signals a field still filing internationally rather than settling on a single jurisdiction of record.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 4,614 records: filing volume by year, and where those records sit across the IPC subclasses that define the field's technical core.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings ran from 394 in 2017 to a peak of 401 in 2018, and 2021-2024 shows real growth (273 to 293, +7%) rather than plateau. 2025 and 2026 figures — 38 in the latest year — reflect publication lag, not a drop in filing activity; treat the last 18 months of any trend line as understated.
IPC subclass composition
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) leads at 40.1% of the 4,614 records, followed closely by G06F (electric digital data processing) at 30.2% and A61N (electrotherapy & radiation therapy) at 29.3%. A63F (games & amusements) at 17.4% marks the consumer-entertainment branch of the field; G02B optics, G06T image processing, A61F implants and G06N AI-model classes each sit in the 7-9% range, evidence of a field still built around signal acquisition and therapeutic delivery more than downstream image or AI processing. Class shares add to more than 100% because most records carry multiple IPC codes.
Shares are the percentage of the 4,614 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Brain-Computer Interfaces Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about brain-computer interfaces patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing
Signal processing system for brain machine interface and method performed by the system
Disclosed is a signal processing system for a brain machine interface (BMI) and a method performed by such a signal processing system. The method involves receiving and filtering input data comprising cortical signal samples, calculating a threshold for detection of spikes, identifying spikes in subsequently received samples, and outputting spike data corresponding to the identified spike or spikes.Filed by the Agency for Science, published 2021-03-18 as US20210076963A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20100282617A1 | Methods and apparatus for detecting molecular interactions using FET arrays | 1,929 |
| 2 | US20170080346A1 | Methods and systems relating to personalized evolving avatars | 732 |
| 3 | US7231254B2 | Closed-loop feedback-driven neuromodulation | 656 |
| 4 | US20050021104A1 | Apparatus and method for closed-loop intracranial stimulation for optimal control of neurological disease | 651 |
| 5 | US20160139666A1 | Whole-body human-computer interface | 615 |
| 6 | US20140223462A1 | System and method for enhancing content using brain-state data | 546 |
| 7 | US20160093108A1 | Synchronizing Multiple Head-Mounted Displays to a Unified Space and Correlating Movement of Objects in the Un… | 477 |
| 8 | US20190121522A1 | Adaptive graphic user interfacing system | 473 |
| 9 | US20080009771A1 | Exoskeleton | 424 |
| 10 | US20140364212A1 | Systems and methods for transitioning between transparent mode and non-transparent mode in a head mounted dip… | 418 |
Citation counts favour older, longer-indexed records inside this corpus — read them as a signal of influence on the field's prior art, not as a ranking 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 numbers mean for filing strategy
Four read-outs of the same dataset, each pointed at a decision rather than a description.
The top of the field is concentrated, the rest is a long tail
The five leading assignees hold 1,435 of 4,614 records (31.1%), and the top ten hold 1,857 (40.2%). Beyond that the ranking runs 100 companies deep with fifth place at 112 records and tenth at 61 — a sharp drop-off that leaves most of the ranked field holding double-digit filing counts.
Growth is real, but recent-year momentum is uneven by assignee
Field-wide filing grew from 273 to 293 between 2021 and 2024. Assignee-level momentum tells a different story: several of the most active recent filers, including Precision Neuroscience, show sharp year-on-year drops in their latest reported year, alongside others sitting flat at zero or one filing.
Diagnosis and electrotherapy classes carry the claim weight
A61B and A61N together anchor the dataset's technical centre of gravity, each covering roughly three in ten records. G06F digital processing (30.2%) sits close behind, showing that signal-handling software claims run parallel to the hardware and therapeutic claims rather than trailing them.
Filing is US-anchored but genuinely international
The United States receives the largest single share of filings at 2,321, with Europe (EPO, 715) and the WIPO PCT route (632) both substantial. Germany, Austria and India each register in the low hundreds, indicating deliberate international filing rather than a US-only strategy.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to brain-computer interfaces patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the openings sit
The ranked field runs 100 assignees deep, from a clear leader down to single-digit filers. Recent-year momentum matters as much as historical volume: several established names have pulled back sharply in their latest reported year.
One filer holds a clear lead
The leading assignee's 941 records dwarf the rest of the ranking; fifth place sits at 112 and tenth at 61, a steep drop that marks a genuine gap between the leader and the rest of the field.
Recent filers are pulling back, not just slowing
Precision Neuroscience's filing count dropped 88% year-on-year to 3 in the latest reported year, and several other named assignees — including two Sony Interactive Entertainment entities and Galvani Bioelectronics — show 0 filings in the latest year with -100% YoY declines.
Joint filing is limited but concentrated where it exists
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, but the strongest — Galvani Bioelectronics with UCL Business — spans 20 shared records, and a University of California / Salk Institute pairing spans 15, pointing to a handful of deliberate research partnerships rather than broad industry-wide collaboration.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| PRECISION NEUROSCIENCE CORP | 3 | -88% |
| Interaxon Inc | 1 | 0% |
| The Regents of the University of California | 1 | — |
| Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Sony Interactive Entertainment America LLC | 0 | — |
| Galvani Bioelectronics Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| NEURONEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC | 0 | — |
| MathWorks Inc | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is defensive clearance, licensing, or a first-filing strategy.
Map claim scope against the leader's 941-record position
Before filing into A61B or A61N, check how much of the leading assignee's portfolio actually overlaps your intended claim scope — concentration at the top does not mean every sub-claim is occupied.
Explore assignee claim scope in EurekaWatch the momentum shifts, not just the totals
Several historically active filers show sharp year-on-year pullbacks in their latest reported year; confirm whether that reflects a strategy shift or simply publication lag before reading it as a market signal.
Track filer momentum in EurekaTest the under-claimed branches for a first-filing angle
G02B optical elements, G06T image processing and G06N AI-model classes each sit under 8% of records — thin enough that a well-drafted first claim could establish real freedom to operate.
Run a white-space search in EurekaCommon questions about the BCI patent landscape
One assignee leads clearly with 941 records in this dataset, well ahead of fifth place at 112 and tenth at 61. The top five assignees combined hold 1,435 of 4,614 records in scope (31.1%), and the top ten hold 1,857 (40.2%), which means the field has a concentrated core but still a long tail of 90 further ranked companies each holding smaller, often single-digit positions. Checking where a specific leader's claims actually sit — rather than assuming broad coverage from volume alone — is the more useful next step than the ranking itself.
Yes, based on the last years that can be treated as complete: filings rose from 273 in 2021 to 293 in 2024, a 7% increase. Figures for 2025 and 2026 look lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, not a real slowdown, so those recent years should not be read as a declining trend. The field peaked in raw annual volume in 2018 at 401 filings and has held a broadly similar range since, rather than falling off after that peak.
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) covers 40.1% of the 4,614 records in scope, the single largest IPC subclass, followed by G06F (electric digital data processing) at 30.2% and A61N (electrotherapy and radiation therapy) at 29.3%. A63F (games and amusements) covers 17.4%, reflecting the consumer and entertainment branch of BCI filing. Optical systems, image processing, implants and AI-model classes each sit in the 7-9% range, meaning software-driven decoding and AI-based interpretation are comparatively under-claimed relative to signal acquisition and therapeutic delivery.
The IPC composition points to several thinner branches: G02B optical interface elements, G06T image-data processing tied to BCI output, and G06N AI-model-based decoding each cover under 8% of the 4,614 records, compared with 40.1% for A61B and 30.2% for G06F. That gap suggests claim space around AI-based cortical signal decoding, pose-tracking fusion for BCI-driven avatars, and optical neural interface components is comparatively open relative to the field's dense core around electrode hardware and therapeutic stimulation.
It exists but is limited: the dataset records only 10 co-assignee pairs across the full set of 4,614 records. The strongest pairing, Galvani Bioelectronics with UCL Business, spans 20 shared records, and a University of California and Salk Institute pairing spans 15, both pointing to specific research partnerships rather than an industry-wide pattern of co-filing. For most assignees in this dataset, filing activity runs independently rather than through joint ventures.
Research Brain-Computer Interfaces Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole brain-computer interfaces 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.