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/computed-tomography-systems-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Medical Imaging · Patent LandscapeComputed Tomography Patents: Filing Trends, Leading Assignees and Open Claim Space
- Filings have cooled, not grown. annual filings ran from 179 in 2017 to a peak of 211 in 2019, then eased back toward 18 in the most recent partial year — a flat-to-declining trend, not an expanding one.
- Incumbents are pulling back at once. several of the largest historical filers show 0 filings in the latest year, a -100% YoY drop, while others sit at -33% — a simultaneous slowdown across the field's biggest names.
- Claims cluster in diagnosis and image processing. A61B and G06T together dominate the IPC composition, while adjacent subclasses like G21K and H05G carry far fewer filings — a visible gap between core and periphery.
3,641
Published Records
37%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-2%
3-Yr Growth (lag-adjusted)
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What the computed tomography patent record shows
Computed tomography patent activity concentrates around three technical cores: acquisition hardware and diagnostic workflow under A61B, image reconstruction and data processing under G06T, and radiation detection physics under G01T. The dataset covers 3,641 patent families filed between 2015 and 2026, drawn from a search string that pairs CT-specific terminology with claim-language filters on dose reduction, detector materials, iterative reconstruction, spatial resolution and spectral imaging. This is a mature field: the most-cited records in the corpus date back to the early 2000s and 1990s, and current filings mostly refine rather than reinvent the underlying architecture.
Filing volume by receiving office confirms where the commercial and regulatory stakes are highest: the United States leads by a wide margin, with Europe and the WIPO/PCT route well behind, and China, Japan and Austria further down the list. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the drop-off visible in the most recent year overstates the actual slowdown — but the multi-year decline from the 2019 peak is a real pattern, not a data artefact.
Filing activity, 2017-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Computed Tomography Systems 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
Filing Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how those filings distribute across IPC subclasses.
A peak in 2019, then a steady decline
Annual filings rose from 179 in 2017 to a peak of 211 in 2019, held near that level through the 2022 midpoint at 204, then declined toward 18 in the most recent, still-partial year. Read the final one to two years as undercounted rather than as a cliff.
Diagnosis and image processing dominate the IPC mix
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) accounts for the largest share of records at 2,802, with G06T (image data processing) second at 1,447 and G01T (radiation measurement) third at 699. Smaller subclasses — G21K, G06K, H05G and A61N — each carry well under 250 records, marking them as comparatively open relative to the core.
Shares are the percentage of the 3,641 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 Computed Tomography Systems covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Computed Tomography Systems with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about computed tomography systems and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited prior art in this corpus
Representative Filing
Iterative reconstruction methods for multi-slice computed tomography
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
A multi-slice computed tomography imaging system is provided including a source that generates an x-ray beam and a detector array that receives the x-ray beam and generates projection data. A translatable table has an object thereon and is operable to translate in relation to the source and the detector array. The source and the detector array rotate about the translatable table to helically scan the object. An image reconstructor is electrically coupled to the detector array and reconstructs an image in response to the projection data using a computed tomography modeled iterative reconstruction technique.Filed by General Electric Company; granted 2005-06-14. Cited among the highest-influence records in this corpus.
Highest-citation records
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6666579B2 | Method and apparatus for obtaining and displaying computed tomography images using a fluoroscopy imaging syst… | 473 |
| 2 | US6490476B1 | Combined PET and X-ray CT tomograph and method for using same | 463 |
| 3 | US6842502B2 | Cone beam computed tomography with a flat panel imager | 416 |
| 4 | US5821541A | Method and apparatus for radiation detection | 392 |
| 5 | US8116430B1 | Multi-mode cone beam CT radiotherapy simulator and treatment machine with a flat panel imager | 385 |
| 6 | US7945021B2 | Multi-mode cone beam CT radiotherapy simulator and treatment machine with a flat panel imager | 381 |
| 7 | US20200085382A1 | Automated lesion detection, segmentation, and longitudinal identification | 350 |
| 8 | US7099428B2 | High spatial resolution X-ray computed tomography (CT) system | 350 |
| 9 | US20030128801A1 | Multi-modality apparatus for dynamic anatomical, physiological and molecular imaging | 345 |
| 10 | US20150213633A1 | System, method and computer-accessible medium for providing a panoramic cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) | 338 |
Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings; treat them as a signal of foundational status, not current 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 Computed Tomography Systems 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 →Analysis
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns in this dataset matter more to a filing or freedom-to-operate decision than the raw counts alone.
Filing Trend
211 → 18
peak year to latest year
Growth has stalled since 2019
The field peaked at 211 filings in 2019 and has not returned to that level since. A midpoint reading of 204 in 2022 shows the plateau held for several years before the recent drop, which is partly a publication-lag effect but not entirely one.
Read the last one to two years as undercounted, not as collapse.
Assignee Momentum
-100% YoY
at several top assignees
Incumbent filing has gone quiet together
Multiple of the historically largest filers recorded zero filings in the latest year, a full drop from prior activity, while others still filing show double-digit percentage declines. That is a synchronized pullback across the field's established names rather than one company stepping back.
New entrants, if any, are not yet visible at scale in this data.
IPC Composition
2,802 vs 208
A61B records vs G21K records
Core claim territory is dense, the periphery is thin
A61B and G06T carry the bulk of filings, meaning core diagnostic and reconstruction claims sit on deep prior art. Subclasses tied to particle and radiation handling and to X-ray technique specifically carry a fraction of that volume.
Density here signals occupied claim space, not technological maturity.
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 computed tomography systems, with the prior art for and against each one.
Co-assignee filing patterns
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation | Toshiba Corporation | 86 |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Royal Philips) | Philips Intellectual Property & Standards GmbH | 56 |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Royal Philips) | Philips North America LLC | 19 |
| General Electric Company | University of Notre Dame | 13 |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Royal Philips) | GRASS MICHAEL | 12 |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Royal Philips) | PROKSA ROLAND | 11 |
| General Electric Company | Purdue Research Foundation | 11 |
| GE Precision Healthcare LLC | The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University | 10 |
The strongest co-assignee pairs in this dataset link entities under the same corporate group — for example Toshiba Medical Systems with Toshiba Corporation, and Royal Philips with its intellectual property and standards affiliate — reflecting internal patent-holding structure rather than external collaboration.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Computed Tomography Systems 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
Assignee Landscape
Who holds the claim territory, and where it is thinning
Filing history in this dataset is dominated by a small set of large medical-imaging manufacturers and their corporate affiliates, several of which show sharply reduced filing in the most recent year.
Momentum Signal
-33% YoY
Canon Medical Systems, latest year
Even active filers are slowing
Canon Medical Systems and the University of California Board of Regents each recorded only 2 filings in the latest year, down 33% year over year — modest activity levels even among assignees still filing at all.
Low absolute counts make percentage swings here noisy; treat as directional.
Momentum Signal
-100% YoY
Philips, GE, GE Precision Healthcare
Several historical leaders show zero recent filings
Royal Philips, General Electric Company and GE Precision Healthcare each show 0 filings in the latest year against prior activity, a full drop that lines up with the broader post-2019 decline visible in the trend data.
Publication lag means some of this activity may still surface as records post.
Corporate Structure
86 shared records
Toshiba Medical Systems + Toshiba Corporation
Filing is grouped inside corporate families
The strongest co-assignee link in the dataset sits between Toshiba Medical Systems and its parent Toshiba Corporation, followed by Royal Philips and its intellectual property and standards affiliate — evidence that filings cluster by corporate structure rather than by cross-company partnership.
Useful context when mapping ownership before a licensing conversation.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Canon Medical Systems Corporation | 2 | -33% |
| The Regents of the University of California | 2 | -33% |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Royal Philips) | 0 | -100% |
| General Electric Company | 0 | -100% |
| GE Precision Healthcare LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation | 0 | — |
| Toshiba Corporation | 0 | — |
| Siemens AG | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Computed Tomography Systems 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
Next Steps
Where to take this analysis
The filing trend and assignee data point to specific next questions depending on what you are trying to decide.
Map freedom-to-operate against the dense core
A61B and G06T claim density means a new filing in core diagnostic or reconstruction workflows will likely sit close to existing patents from the largest historical assignees.
Explore claim overlap in EurekaTrack whether incumbent pullback is real or lag
The simultaneous drop to zero filings among several top assignees deserves a closer look at whether it reflects a genuine strategic shift or simply publication delay.
Monitor assignee activity in EurekaScope the under-claimed branches before filing
Photon-counting detector materials and spectral CT energy discrimination carry comparatively thin filing volume relative to the core, which may leave room for a defensible first claim.
Search white space in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Computed Tomography Systems 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 on CT patent activity
The dataset shows filing concentrated among a small group of large medical-imaging manufacturers and their corporate affiliates, including Toshiba Medical Systems and its parent Toshiba Corporation, Royal Philips and its intellectual property affiliate, and General Electric entities. These groups also show the strongest co-assignee links, reflecting how filings are held within a corporate family rather than shared across separate companies. Several of these same assignees show sharply reduced or zero filings in the most recent year, so historical leadership does not necessarily mean current filing activity.
Filing activity in this dataset peaked in 2019 at 211 records and has trended down since, reaching 18 in the most recent, still-partial year. Because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the very latest year understates true activity, but the multi-year decline from the 2019 peak through a 2022 midpoint of 204 is a genuine plateau-then-decline pattern rather than a data artefact of the most recent months alone.
Diagnosis and surgery-related claims under IPC A61B make up the largest share of records at 2,802, followed by image data processing and generation under G06T at 1,447, then radiation measurement under G01T at 699. These three subclasses form the dense core of CT patenting. Anyone filing new claims in reconstruction algorithms or core diagnostic hardware should expect to run into deep prior art in these categories.
Relative to the dense A61B and G06T core, subclasses tied to particle and radiation handling (G21K, 208 records), data recognition and presentation (G06K, 192 records) and X-ray technique specifically (H05G, 156 records) carry far fewer filings. That does not guarantee an easy path to a grant, but it does mean claim space there is less occupied. Photon-counting detector materials and spectral CT energy discrimination sit in this thinner territory and are worth scoping before assuming the core is the only place to file.
US6907102B1, assigned to General Electric Company and granted in 2005, claims a multi-slice CT imaging system that uses a computed-tomography-modeled iterative reconstruction technique on projection data gathered during a helical scan. It is a representative filing in this corpus rather than the single most-cited one, but it sits squarely in the iterative reconstruction space that continues to draw filings today. Anyone building a reconstruction pipeline that models cross-sections from helically acquired projection data should review it as part of a freedom-to-operate check.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Computed Tomography Systems 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 Computed Tomography Systems in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole computed tomography systems 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.