Coordinate Measuring & 3D Scanning Patents: Leaders vs Long Tail 2026
- Filing has cooled since its 2018 peak of 15. the midpoint year 2022 sits at just 4, and momentum among the six most-active assignees reads zero in the latest full year — a maturing claim space, not a growing one.
- G01B dominates almost completely. 112 of 113 records sit in length-and-dimension measurement, with image processing (G06T, 9), navigation (G01C, 9) and control systems (G05B, 10) present only as secondary classifications.
- The oldest cited patents still carry the most weight. the five most-cited records date to 1987–1998 and each carry over 100 citations, meaning current filers are building on three-decade-old laser probe and CMM inspection art.
Filing growth compares 2021 (5 records) with 2024 (1) — 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 113 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
A narrow, well-picked-over field
Coordinate measuring machines and 3D scanning metrology form a tightly defined patent space: 112 of 113 families classify under G01B, the length-and-dimension measurement subclass, with everything else — image processing, navigation, control systems — appearing as secondary tags rather than a distinct filing centre. The search string ties the topic to specific technical problems: point cloud registration, measurement uncertainty, probe compensation, scanning speed and reflective-surface handling. That specificity is why the dataset is small and why its citation graph reaches back to foundational laser-probe and CMM patents from the late 1980s and 1990s.
Filing offices split across the United States (48), Europe (28) and China (13), with WIPO PCT filings (9) suggesting a modest share of applicants pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection. The filing trend has flattened rather than grown: a 2018 peak of 15 gave way to a midpoint of 4 by 2022, and recent-year filing counts recorded against the most active named assignees all read zero — though publication lag of roughly 18 months means the most recent year understates true filing activity.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
113 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026, concentrated almost entirely in one IPC subclass and skewed toward a small number of filing offices.
A field that peaked in 2018 and has not recovered
Filings rose to 15 in 2018, then declined toward a midpoint of 4 by 2022. With 0 recorded for 2026 (a partial year) and momentum flat across the most active assignees, the near-term filing curve is either genuinely cooling or waiting on publications still in the 18-month pipeline.
G01B carries almost the entire dataset
112 of 113 records sit under G01B (measuring length and dimensions). Secondary classifications — G01N materials testing (13), G05B control systems (10), G01C navigation (9) and G06T image processing (9) — show where CMM and scanning claims intersect with adjacent disciplines, but none approaches G01B's density.
Shares are the percentage of the 113 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Coordinate Measuring and 3D Scanning with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about coordinate measuring and 3d scanning and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe prior art current filers must clear
Method of estimating uncertainty of coordinate measurement (US20230127538A1)
The application describes a method for estimating measurement uncertainty on a coordinate measuring machine by interpolating a maximum permissible length measurement error across measurement dimensions, using variable values captured at known measurement-condition values to calculate the error at an unmeasured third condition value.Filed by Mitutoyo; published 2023-04-27.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4733969A | Laser probe for determining distance | 281 |
| 2 | US5510977A | Method and apparatus for measuring features of a part or item | 230 |
| 3 | US5471406A | Method of measuring elemental shapes of a workpiece on a coordinate measuring machine | 147 |
| 4 | US5861956A | Retroreflector for use with tooling ball | 109 |
| 5 | US4991304A | Workpiece inspection method | 107 |
| 6 | US6086283A | Universal joint for coordinate measuring device | 62 |
| 7 | US5797191A | Parallel kinematic structure for spatial positioning devices and method of initializing same | 61 |
| 8 | US4866643A | Method for automatic compensation of probe offset in a coordinate measuring machine | 58 |
| 9 | US5313410A | Artifact and method for verifying accuracy of a positioning apparatus | 50 |
| 10 | US6741363B1 | Method and an apparatus for the optical detection of a contrast line | 44 |
Citation counts favour older records simply by virtue of age in the corpus; read them as markers of foundational influence, not current 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 a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once family counts, citation weight and IPC composition are read together.
Nearly the whole corpus sits in one subclass
Length-and-dimension measurement (G01B) is not just the leading category — it is almost the entire dataset. Secondary IPC tags in image processing, control systems and navigation appear as features bolted onto a G01B core, not as independent filing centres.
Filing has flattened since the 2018 peak
The trend line does not show a growing field. From a peak of 15 in 2018, annual filings dropped to 4 by the 2022 midpoint, and the most-active named assignees each show zero filings in the latest recorded year.
Current claims sit on decades-old foundations
The five most-cited records date from 1987 to 1998 and each carry over 100 citations — laser probe distance measurement and CMM inspection methods that any new probe-compensation or reflective-surface claim will likely need to distinguish from.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to coordinate measuring and 3d scanning, with the prior art for and against each one.
A field led by instrument makers, not software entrants
The named assignees are metrology equipment manufacturers rather than software or vision-only entrants, and recent-year activity has gone quiet across the board.
The largest CMM makers show no recent activity in this dataset
Mitutoyo, Carl Zeiss Industrial Metrology, Renishaw, FARO Technologies, Hexagon Technology Center and Werth Vision Instruments (Hexagon-related) each register zero filings in the latest recorded year, consistent with the broader flattening of the filing trend rather than any single company's retreat.
One university lab appears repeatedly in co-assignee pairs
Politecnico di Torino appears alongside individual named inventors in the strongest co-assignee pairings in the dataset, each recurring twice — a pattern suggesting a small, stable academic-industry research group rather than a broad collaboration network.
US and European filings dominate over China and PCT
The United States (48) and the European Patent Office (28) account for the bulk of receiving-office activity, with China (13) and WIPO PCT (9) trailing — a filing footprint typical of an established instrument-manufacturing base rather than an emerging-market growth story.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Mitutoyo Corporation | 0 | — |
| Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH | 0 | — |
| Renishaw plc | 0 | — |
| FARO Technologies, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Hexagon Technology Center GmbH | 0 | — |
| Werth Messtechnik GmbH | 0 | — |
| Hexagon Metrology | 0 | — |
| HEXAGON METROLOGY A B (SE) | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset flags concentration and flattening filing activity; the next step is testing specific claim language against this prior art.
Check freedom-to-operate on probe compensation claims
The dense, decades-old citation graph around laser probe measurement means new probe-compensation filings need careful novelty checks against 1990s-era CMM patents still actively cited today.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaMap the quiet incumbents before they re-file
Zero latest-year filings across the largest named assignees could mean a lull, publication lag, or a shift to filing under different subsidiaries — worth tracking rather than assuming retreat.
Track assignee activity in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The dataset's named assignees are dominated by established CMM and metrology instrument manufacturers rather than software-only entrants. Mitutoyo, Carl Zeiss Industrial Metrology, Renishaw, FARO Technologies and Hexagon Technology Center all appear among the more active filers historically, though all six show zero filings in the most recently recorded year. This pattern reflects an industry where hardware incumbents have long controlled probe, sensor and calibration IP rather than one being disrupted by new entrants.
Filings peaked at 15 in 2018 and dropped to a midpoint of 4 by 2022, with the most recent year showing effectively no activity among the top assignees. Part of this is a genuine flattening — the core measurement techniques (probe compensation, point cloud registration, uncertainty estimation) may be reaching claim saturation in G01B. Part of it is also publication lag: patents filed in the last 18 months typically have not published yet, so the very latest years in any filing trend understate real activity.
G01B (measuring length and dimensions) is the dominant class, covering 112 of 113 records in this dataset, so any search must anchor there. Secondary classes worth including are G01N for materials testing, G05B for control and regulating systems used in scanning speed control, G01C for navigation and distance-sensing overlaps, and G06T for point cloud and image processing claims. Missing any of these secondary classes risks undercounting filings that combine CMM hardware with software-side processing claims.
This Mitutoyo filing claims a specific method of interpolating maximum permissible length measurement error across measurement dimensions using values captured at known measurement conditions to estimate error at an unmeasured condition. It does not block uncertainty estimation generally — it blocks this specific interpolation approach applied to CMM measurement-condition values. Teams building alternative uncertainty models, such as those based on direct empirical calibration curves rather than interpolated variable functions, would sit outside this claim's likely scope, though a freedom-to-operate review of the full claim set is the only way to confirm that.
The secondary IPC classes with low record counts point to under-claimed territory: real-time point cloud registration for parts in motion, probe compensation that accounts for thermal drift during long measurement cycles, and reflective-surface scanning that avoids anti-glare spray coatings all sit at the edges of the dense G01B core. These branches show technical activity in the abstracts but far fewer dedicated claims than core CMM probe and calibration methods. Filing here still requires checking against the foundational laser-probe patents that anchor the field's citation graph.
Research Coordinate Measuring and 3D Scanning in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole coordinate measuring and 3d scanning 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.