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/cochlear-implant-electrode-arrays-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Hearing TechnologyCochlear implant electrode array patents: where the filing sits and where it doesn't
- One filer dominates the ranking at 106 records against a fifth-place assignee at 18 and a tenth-place at 6 — a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one.
- Filing grew 19% from 2021 to 2024 (16 to 19 records), the last span the dataset treats as complete once publication lag is accounted for.
- Drug-eluting and informatics classes barely register A61K sits at 3.4% and G16H at 2.7% of the 261 records in scope, versus 83.9% for A61N electrotherapy claims.
261
Published Records
+19%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
71
Active Filers Ranked
Filing growth compares 2021 (16 records) with 2024 (19) — 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.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Cochlear implant electrode arrays sit at the intersection of neurostimulation hardware and cochlear anatomy: claims cover how an array is inserted, how it flexes against the modiolar wall, how impedance is measured during and after placement, and increasingly how a drug payload is delivered from the electrode itself. This dataset tracks 261 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine array or intracochlear electrode terms with a functional claim around insertion trauma, flexibility, hearing preservation, modiolar positioning, impedance change or drug elution.
The filing base is small enough that a handful of assignees define the field's shape, and the technology composition below shows most activity is still concentrated in core electrotherapy and surgical-diagnosis claims rather than in the drug-delivery or informatics layers built on top of them.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays 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
The data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 261 records: how filing has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings peaked at 36 in 2018, then settled into a lower band; the 2021-to-2024 span shows 16 records rising to 19, a 19% increase over three years. 2025 and 2026 counts are still filling in under normal publication lag and should not be read as a slowdown.
IPC subclass composition
A61N (electrotherapy & radiation therapy) appears in 83.9% of the 261 records, with A61B (diagnosis & surgery) in 40.2% and A61F (implants & prostheses) in 15.7%. Smaller shares in H04R, A61M, H10N, A61K and G16H mark where audio-transducer, fluid-device, solid-state, drug-delivery and informatics claims each sit; because records can carry multiple classes, these figures sum to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 261 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 Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cochlear implant electrode arrays and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey patents
Representative filing and most-cited prior art
Representative record
WO2019186373A1 — Electrical techniques for biomarker detection in a cochlea
COCHLEAR LIMITED
A method that energizes electrodes of a cochlear array to induce current flow in the cochlea at multiple temporal locations, measures the resulting electrical properties at those locations, and determines whether trauma has occurred based on the change between the two measurements.Filed by Cochlear Limited; published 2019-10-03. Frames trauma detection as an electrical-measurement problem rather than a mechanical-insertion one.
Most-cited records in this dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5749912A | Low-cost, four-channel cochlear implant | 305 |
| 2 | US20180050196A1 | Advanced electrode array insertion | 295 |
| 3 | US20100114288A1 | Cochlear electrode insertion | 161 |
| 4 | US20070088335A1 | Implantable neuro-stimulation electrode with fluid reservoir | 117 |
| 5 | US20110087085A1 | Method and device for intracochlea impedance measurement | 110 |
| 6 | US20070225776A1 | Intracochlear Nanotechnology and Perfusion Hearing Aid Device | 110 |
| 7 | US20090062896A1 | Minimizing Trauma During and After Insertion of a Cochlear Lead | 65 |
| 8 | US20130079749A1 | Modular Drug Delivery System for Minimizing Trauma During and After Insertion of a Cochlear Lead | 60 |
| 9 | US20090292237A1 | Modular Drug Delivery System for Minimizing Trauma During and After Insertion of a Cochlear Lead | 58 |
| 10 | US20080033520A1 | Implantable Neuro-Stimulation Electrode with Drug Elution Material | 52 |
Citation counts accumulate over time and favour older filings; treat them as a measure of influence within this corpus, not of current commercial relevance.
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 Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays 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 say
Three patterns worth acting on before scoping a filing or a design-around.
Concentration
106 vs. 18
leader vs. fifth place
One assignee sets the boundary for the field
The leading assignee holds 106 records in the ranking, more than five times the fifth-place assignee's 18. Any freedom-to-operate check in this space has to start with that one portfolio before looking anywhere else.
Ranking covers 71 companies, counted in records.
Momentum
+19%
2021 → 2024 filings
Growth is real but modest
Filings rose from 16 in 2021 to 19 in 2024, a 19% increase over three years — steady rather than a surge. 2018's peak of 36 records has not been matched since.
2025–2026 figures are still incomplete due to publication lag.
Composition
3.4%
A61K share of 261 records
Drug-eluting claims are a thin layer on a thick base
Medicinal-preparation claims (A61K) appear in just 3.4% of records and healthcare informatics (G16H) in 2.7%, against 83.9% for core electrotherapy claims. The mechanical and electrical foundations are heavily claimed; delivery and data layers are not.
Shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple IPC classes.
Filing venue
94 US filings
of tracked receiving offices
US and EPO carry most of the activity
United States filings (94) lead, followed by EPO (54) and WIPO/PCT (46), with Australia, Germany and Austria trailing well behind. A US-first filing strategy still matches where this field's activity actually lands.
Receiving office counts are not mutually exclusive with family counts.
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 cochlear implant electrode arrays, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays 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 is filing, and where the field is thin
The ranked leaders split into a small set of device makers, a cluster of university research offices, and a long tail of single-digit filers.
Leader
106 records
ranking leader
The dominant device maker
MED EL Elektromedizinische Geraete leads the ranking by a wide margin, well ahead of the next-largest filer. Its portfolio is the first reference point for any clearance search in this space.
Recent-year momentum for this assignee shows 0 filings in the latest tracked year, a -100% YoY change consistent with publication lag rather than withdrawal.
Established competitor
18 records
fifth place
Cochlear and Advanced Bionics hold the next tier
Cochlear Limited and Advanced Bionics (filed both as AG and LLC entities) sit in the next tier of activity, with claims spanning insertion mechanics, impedance measurement and trauma detection — the representative record in this dataset is a Cochlear Limited filing.
Cochlear's own recent-year momentum shows 0 filings in the latest year, also a -100% YoY reading tied to lag.
Academic and research filers
9 co-assignee pairs
strongest collaborations
University groups file jointly, not alone
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Washington University in St. Louis and Ohio State Innovation Foundation form the strongest co-assignee pairs in the dataset, each pairing appearing 9 times — a sign these groups are filing collaboratively rather than competing head-to-head.
IotaMotion, a smaller specialist filer, shows 1 filing in the latest tracked year at 0% YoY — the only assignee in the momentum data still active.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| IotaMotion Inc | 1 | 0% |
| MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geraete GmbH | 0 | -100% |
| Cochlear Limited | 0 | -100% |
| The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | 0 | — |
| The University of Iowa Research Foundation | 0 | — |
| Ohio State Innovation Foundation | 0 | — |
| Advanced Bionics | 0 | — |
| Washington University in Saint Louis | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays 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
Three ways to use this landscape depending on what decision is in front of you.
Scope a freedom-to-operate review
Start with the leading assignee's portfolio, then work down through the ranked leaders before touching the long tail — the drop-off from first to fifth place means most exposure sits with a small set of filers.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaFind the open claim space
Drug-eluting electrodes, robotic insertion tools and informatics-linked fitting sit well below the core electrotherapy and surgical classes in filing density — worth a closer novelty search before assuming the space is crowded.
Run a white space search in EurekaTrack momentum, not just totals
Recent-year YoY figures for several major assignees read as sharp drops, but that pattern matches publication lag across the board rather than a real pullback — re-check this view once 2025–2026 data settles.
Set up filing alerts in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays 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
MED EL Elektromedizinische Geraete leads the ranking with 106 records, well ahead of the next-largest filer. Cochlear Limited and Advanced Bionics (filed under both its AG and LLC entities) occupy the next tier, with a fifth-place assignee holding 18 records. Below that the ranking thins quickly into university research offices and smaller specialist filers with single-digit counts, so a clearance search should prioritise the top few names before working down the list.
Filing peaked at 36 records in 2018 and has not returned to that level since. Looking at the most recent complete span, filings rose from 16 in 2021 to 19 in 2024, a 19% increase over three years — steady growth rather than a boom. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are still low, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than a genuine slowdown.
A61N, covering electrotherapy and radiation therapy claims, appears in 83.9% of the 261 records in scope, making it by far the densest class. A61B (diagnosis and surgery) follows at 40.2% and A61F (implants and prostheses) at 15.7%. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these figures add up to more than 100% and should be read as overlapping coverage, not a breakdown of distinct segments.
The thinnest classes relative to the core electrotherapy base are A61K (medicinal preparations, drug elution) at 3.4% and G16H (healthcare informatics) at 2.7% of the 261 records. Robotic or motorised insertion tools and biomarker-based trauma detection also show comparatively little dedicated claim density outside a handful of specialist and university filers. These are the branches worth a targeted novelty search before assuming prior art blocks a new filing there.
Not on its own. The most-cited records in this dataset, including US5749912A and US20180050196A1, accumulated their citation counts over many years, which structurally favours older filings simply because they have had longer to be cited. A high count signals influence on later filings within this corpus, not that the underlying claims are still commercially central today, so pair citation data with the filing-trend and assignee-momentum views before drawing conclusions.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays 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 Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cochlear implant electrode arrays 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.