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/cooperative-perception-and-data-fusion-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Connected Vehicles & V2X · Patent LandscapeCooperative Perception and Data Fusion Patents
- Filing peaked in 2021 at 22 records, then fell 45% to 12 by 2024, the last year the dataset treats as complete — a real pullback, not a publication-lag artefact.
- One assignee holds 21 of 125 records outright, and the top five together account for 40.8% of everything in scope — concentration sits at the very top, not spread across a mid-tier cluster.
- Wireless communication framing (H04W) touches 43.2% of records, while image/video recognition (G06V) appears in only 8.0% — the perception-side claim space is thinner than the communication-side one.
125
Published Records
41%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-45%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (22 records) with 2024 (12) — 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 125 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Cooperative perception covers systems where vehicles, roadside units or edge servers exchange raw or processed sensor data so that each node perceives beyond its own line of sight. The search scope here pairs core sharing and fusion concepts — cooperative perception, sensor data sharing, point cloud fusion — with the mechanics that make sharing usable in practice: temporal alignment, coordinate transformation, occlusion handling, data redundancy, transmission latency and object matching. That combination is deliberate: a patent that only claims data sharing without addressing latency or alignment rarely survives contact with a real multi-vehicle deployment.
The corpus spans 125 published records filed between 2017 and 2026, with publication naturally lagging filing by roughly 18 months, so the final year or two will fill in as more applications publish. Records are drawn across major receiving offices, with the United States, the EPO and India carrying the largest volumes, giving a reasonably global read on where this technology is being protected rather than a single-jurisdiction snapshot.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2017–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cooperative Perception and Data Fusion 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 trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 125 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim weight.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose from 7 in 2017 to a peak of 22 in 2021, then declined to 12 by 2024 — a 45% drop over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete due to publication lag and should not be read as a continued decline.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
H04W (wireless communication networks) appears in 43.2% of records, ahead of G06T (image data processing, 23.2%) and G08G (traffic control systems, 20.0%). Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares sum to more than 100% and should be read as class prevalence, not a partition of the corpus.
Shares are the percentage of the 125 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 Cooperative Perception and Data Fusion covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Cooperative Perception and Data Fusion with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cooperative perception and data fusion and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative filing and most-cited records
Representative Record
Systems and methods for a cooperative perception system
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Describes a cooperative perception system where a first subsystem with a sensor, communication device and processor detects point cloud data, preprocesses it, encodes features, applies adaptive feature filtering to select a subset of features, and then fuses that subset with data from other subsystems through cooperative feature aggregation.Filed by The Regents of the University of California; published 2025-11-06.
Most-cited records in this corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US11222217B1 | Detection method using fusion network based on attention mechanism, and terminal device | 536 |
| 2 | US20220038554A1 | Edge computing local breakout | 136 |
| 3 | CN109272537A | 一种基于结构光的全景点云配准方法 | 41 |
| 4 | US10769953B1 | Vehicle-to-vehicle sensor data sharing | 38 |
| 5 | US11862016B1 | Multi-intelligence federal reinforcement learning-based vehicle-road cooperative control system and method at… | 36 |
| 6 | US20190206123A1 | Method and apparatus for fusing point cloud data | 32 |
| 7 | US20180160333A1 | Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) sensor sharing | 29 |
| 8 | US20210146944A1 | Reducing processing requirements for vehicle control | 26 |
| 9 | US20200394915A1 | Vehicle-to-vehicle sensor data sharing | 26 |
| 10 | US20210337512A1 | Methods and systems for autonomous sidelink resource allocation | 25 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — treat this as a signal of influence on the field to date, not a ranking of current technical importance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 Cooperative Perception and Data Fusion 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 mean for a filing decision
Three read-throughs of the concentration, trend and classification data that matter for anyone deciding where to file next or who to watch.
Concentration
40.8% of 125 records
held by the top 5 assignees
Claim space is concentrated at the very top
One assignee alone accounts for 21 of the 125 records in scope, and the top five combined hold 40.8% of everything. That is a narrower concentration than a long, even tail would produce — new entrants are more likely to find room by working around a small number of dominant filers than by competing against a diffuse field.
Based on the full 60-company ranked list.
Momentum
22 (2021) → 12 (2024), -45%
peak-to-latest-complete-year change
Volume has pulled back from its 2021 peak
Filing rose steadily to a 2021 peak of 22 records before falling to 12 by 2024, a 45% decline over three years. That decline predates the publication-lag window, so it reflects an actual pullback in filing activity rather than incomplete data — worth checking whether it tracks a maturing core architecture or a shift toward fewer, larger filers.
2025–2026 figures are still filling in and are excluded from this comparison.
Composition
43.2% vs 8.0%
H04W share vs G06V share of 125 records
Communication framing outweighs recognition claims
Wireless communication networks (H04W) appear in 43.2% of records, more than double the next class (G06T image processing, 23.2%), while image/video recognition (G06V) sits at just 8.0%. The heaviest claim traffic sits on how data moves and gets synchronised, not on how it is recognised or classified once received.
Shares sum above 100% because records can carry multiple IPC classes.
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 cooperative perception and data fusion, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cooperative Perception and Data Fusion 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 still open
A small group of automotive, telecom and chipset firms hold the largest single blocks, but the ranked list runs to 60 companies with a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants.
Leader
21 records
held by the top-ranked assignee
A single filer sets the pace
The leading assignee's 21 records is well ahead of fifth place at 5 and tenth place at 4 — the drop-off from first to fifth is steep, then the ranking flattens into a long tail. That shape suggests one or two players built an early, broad portfolio while most others are still staking out narrower positions.
Ranking covers all 60 companies returned for this scope.
Collaboration
3 co-assignee pairs
identified across the corpus
Co-filing is rare but concentrated among a few OEM pairs
Only three co-assignee pairings appear in the data, and the strongest links sit between a major automaker and its brand subsidiary, and between two divisions of a common automotive supplier. Joint filing is not yet a common strategy in this field; most portfolios here are built by a single entity.
Counts reflect records with more than one listed assignee.
Geography
60 US filings
the largest single receiving office
Filing activity is US-led but genuinely multi-jurisdictional
The United States receives the largest share of filings, with the EPO, India and China each carrying a meaningful secondary volume and a further slice routed through the WIPO PCT track. A portfolio strategy built only around US and European offices would still miss the China and India volume visible here.
Counts are receiving-office totals, not deduplicated families per office.
Recent-year filing momentum by leading assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Qualcomm Inc. | 0 | — |
| Sony Group Corporation | 0 | — |
| Toyota Motor North America, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Volkswagen AG | 0 | — |
| GM Global Technology Operations LLC | 0 | — |
| SEAT S.A. | 0 | — |
| Intel Corporation | 0 | — |
| Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cooperative Perception and Data Fusion 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 analysis
The dataset points to a field with a settled communication layer and thinner claim coverage on the perception and recognition side.
Stress-test a filing position against the leader's portfolio
With one assignee holding 21 of 125 records, any new filing in the core sharing-and-fusion space should be checked against that portfolio's claim scope before drafting, not after.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTrack whether the 2021-2024 pullback continues
A 45% drop from peak filing is a real signal, but 2025-2026 data is still incomplete under normal publication lag; revisit this trend once those years settle.
Set up a filing-trend alert in EurekaMap the under-claimed branches before committing claim language
Occlusion-aware filtering and cross-sensor temporal re-alignment show thinner density than the wireless-communication core — useful territory to check before writing claims that default to the crowded H04W framing.
Run a white-space search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cooperative Perception and Data Fusion 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 about this landscape
Records were selected for combining a sharing or fusion concept — cooperative perception, sensor data sharing or point cloud fusion — with a mechanism that makes that sharing workable in practice, such as temporal alignment, coordinate transformation, occlusion handling, data redundancy, transmission latency management or object matching. This dual requirement filters out patents that merely mention sensor sharing in passing without addressing how it is actually implemented. The scope covers 125 published records filed between 2017 and 2026.
The ranking covers 60 companies, with the single leading assignee holding 21 of the 125 records in scope and the top five together accounting for 40.8% of all records. Beyond the top ten, which together hold 56.8%, the ranking flattens into a long tail of companies with only a handful of filings each. That shape means a competitive read should focus on the handful of large portfolio holders rather than treating the field as evenly distributed.
Filing volume rose from 7 records in 2017 to a peak of 22 in 2021, then fell to 12 by 2024, a 45% decline over that three-year span. That is the most recent year the dataset treats as complete; 2025 and 2026 counts are still filling in because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so those final years understate true activity and should not be read as evidence of an accelerating decline.
Wireless communication networks (H04W) appear in 43.2% of the 125 records, making it the most heavily claimed subclass, followed by image data processing (G06T) at 23.2% and traffic control systems (G08G) at 20.0%. Image and video recognition (G06V) appears in only 8.0% of records, suggesting the recognition side of cooperative perception carries comparatively lighter claim density than the communication and traffic-management side. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages do not sum to 100%.
The clearest openings sit in sub-areas adjacent to the dense communication core rather than inside it: occlusion-aware feature filtering, cross-sensor temporal re-alignment, redundancy-aware bandwidth allocation, object re-identification across viewpoints and edge-server fusion arbitration all show thinner filing density than the wireless-communication and traffic-control classes that dominate the corpus. Co-filing is also rare, with only three identified co-assignee pairs, suggesting joint-development claim strategies remain largely untried. A new filer should map claim language in these adjacent branches before defaulting to the crowded H04W framing.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cooperative Perception and Data Fusion 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 Cooperative Perception and Data Fusion in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cooperative perception and data fusion 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.