Directional DBS Lead Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- One filer dominates the record. The leading assignee holds 35 of the ranked families against a fifth-place figure of 6 — a steep drop-off, not a gradual one.
- Filing already peaked once, in 2017 at 12. Later years taper toward zero, though the newest years are understated because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months.
- Classification is lopsided toward the therapy itself. 75.0% of the 68 records sit in A61N electrotherapy, while only 29.4% touch G06F data processing — the software side of current steering is comparatively thin.
What this patent set covers
This landscape covers directional DBS leads and segmented electrode contacts — hardware and control methods for steering stimulation current around a deep brain stimulation lead rather than emitting it in a single ring. The search string ties lead geometry terms (segmented contact, lead orientation) to the control concepts that make directional stimulation useful in practice: current steering, electric field shaping, contact impedance and stimulation sweet spot or side effect threshold targeting. The scope runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, capturing 68 published records.
Because a single record can carry more than one IPC class, the technology composition below adds up to more than 100% of the record total — that is expected, not an error, and it is the same denominator used throughout this page.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 68 records: how filing has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings peaked at 12 in 2017 and have declined toward zero by 2026; the last one to two years are always undercounted at this cut-off because publication trails filing by around 18 months, so treat the tail as provisional rather than a real drop-off.
IPC subclass composition
A61N (electrotherapy) covers 75.0% of the 68 records, A61B (diagnosis and surgery) 36.8%, and G06F (digital data processing) 29.4% — the hardware and delivery side of directional stimulation is far more heavily claimed than the software layer that computes where current should go.
Shares are the percentage of the 68 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Directional DBS Leads and Segmented Contacts with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about directional dbs leads and segmented contacts and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited prior art in this set
Directional-device intrabody placement systems and related methods (US20220296308A1)
Methods and systems that identify an intrabody orientation of a directional medical device, such as a deep brain stimulation lead, using a mesh model. The mesh model is a shape-constrained trained model of fused post-operative MRI and CT image data, defined by the intensity of artifact patterns corresponding to a passive orientation marker on the physical device.Filed by ClearPoint Neuro, Inc., published 2022-09-22.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20090287271A1 | Clinician programmer system and method for calculating volumes of activation | 423 |
| 2 | US20090287272A1 | Clinician programmer system and method for steering volumesof activation | 248 |
| 3 | US20090287273A1 | Clinician programmer system interface for monitoring patient progress | 233 |
| 4 | US20090287467A1 | Clinician programmer system and method for generating interface models and displays of volumes of activation | 195 |
| 5 | US8326433B2 | Clinician programmer system and method for calculating volumes of activation for monopolar and bipolar electr… | 181 |
| 6 | US8849632B2 | Clinician programmer system and method for generating interface models and displays of volumes of activation | 151 |
| 7 | US8831731B2 | Clinician programmer system and method for calculating volumes of activation | 144 |
| 8 | US20100049276A1 | Clinician programmer system and method for calculating volumes of activation for monopolar and bipolar electr… | 142 |
| 9 | US20110313268A1 | Clinician programmer system and method for steering volumes of activation | 77 |
| 10 | US20130226261A1 | Clinician programmer system and method for generating interface models and displays of volumes of activation | 75 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records by construction — read these as markers of influence on later filings, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
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 say
Three findings that shape how a freedom-to-operate or whitespace review of this field should be scoped.
One filer, then a long tail
The leading assignee's 35 ranked families sit well ahead of a fifth-place count of 6 and a tenth-place count of 3. That gap means the core current-steering and volume-of-activation claims are concentrated in one portfolio, while the remaining ranked companies and individual inventors hold narrower, more peripheral positions.
Programmer software, not the lead itself, draws the citations
The most-cited records in this set are clinician programmer systems for calculating and displaying volumes of activation, not the physical segmented-contact lead. That points to the stimulation-planning software layer as the part of the stack that later filers had to design around most often.
Control software is thinly claimed relative to the hardware
G06F (digital data processing) appears in 29.4% of the 68 records against 75.0% for A61N electrotherapy claims. Image-processing classes G06T (2.9%) and healthcare informatics G16H (1.5%) are thinner still, suggesting the computational side of current steering has more open claim space than the electrode and lead hardware it controls.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to directional dbs leads and segmented contacts, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where the gaps sit
The ranked assignees split between one large corporate portfolio, a cluster of individually named co-inventors, and a specialist neurosurgical-navigation entrant.
A dominant corporate holder
The top-ranked company holds 35 of the 68 records in scope, built substantially on the clinician-programmer and volume-of-activation patents that also carry the heaviest citation counts in this set. Its position covers both the segmented-lead hardware and the software used to plan stimulation around it.
A tightly linked inventor cluster
Three individually named inventors co-appear on 8 records each in pairwise combination — the strongest co-assignee links in the dataset. That pattern indicates a small original engineering team behind a meaningful share of the foundational current-steering claims, later assigned into corporate portfolios.
A narrower, recent claim on lead orientation
The representative 2022 filing on intrabody lead-orientation detection via fused MRI/CT mesh modelling comes from a company outside the two largest portfolios, showing that orientation-sensing and placement-verification methods remain an area newer entrants can still stake claims in.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| INTELECT MEDICAL INC | 0 | — |
| Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp | 0 | — |
| SPARKS TROY | 0 | — |
| KOKONES SCOTT | 0 | — |
| BLUM DAVID ARTHUR | 0 | — |
| Alpha Omega Engineering Ltd | 0 | — |
| CARLTON KEITH | 0 | — |
| Alpha Omega Neurotech Ltd | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, whitespace filing, or portfolio benchmarking.
Check the software layer for open claims
With G06F appearing in only 29.4% of records against 75.0% for A61N, a targeted search of stimulation-planning and field-shaping software claims may surface less-crowded ground than the electrode hardware itself.
Explore with EurekaMap the leader's portfolio boundary precisely
Before designing around the dominant assignee's 35 families, confirm exactly which claims cover volume-of-activation calculation versus physical segmented-contact geometry — the two are cited differently and may not block the same design choices.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaWatch orientation-sensing as an active filing zone
The 2022 representative filing on MRI/CT-based lead-orientation detection suggests placement-verification methods are still being actively claimed, later than the field's main 2017 peak.
Track new filings in EurekaCommon questions on directional DBS lead patents
In this dataset, a directional DBS lead is a deep brain stimulation electrode with segmented (non-ring) contacts arranged around the lead body, allowing current to be steered toward one side of the target structure rather than spreading it evenly. Patent claims in this space typically cover either the physical segmented-contact geometry or the control methods — current steering, electric field shaping, contact impedance monitoring — used to decide how current is distributed across those segments. The dataset spans both hardware and software claims tied to this function.
One assignee leads the ranked list with 35 of the 68 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-ranked holder at 6. The ranking covers 13 companies and named inventors in total, so this is a concentrated field rather than one with many similarly-sized competitors. Several of the individually named inventors in the ranking also co-appear on shared filings, indicating an original engineering team whose work was later assigned into corporate portfolios.
2017 is the peak year in this dataset at 12 filings, with a decline visible through to 2026. Some of that decline is real — the foundational current-steering and segmented-contact claims may already be filed — but the most recent one to two years are understated in any patent dataset because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. Treat the 2025-2026 figures as provisional rather than a confirmed drop in filing activity.
US20220296308A1, assigned to ClearPoint Neuro, Inc. and published 2022-09-22, covers methods and systems for identifying the intrabody orientation of a directional medical device such as a DBS lead. It uses a mesh model — a shape-constrained trained model built from fused post-operative MRI and CT image data — keyed to artifact-pattern intensity around a passive orientation marker on the physical device. This is a placement-verification and orientation-detection claim, distinct from the current-steering control claims that dominate the rest of the dataset.
Classification density points to the control-software layer as comparatively open: G06F digital data processing appears in only 29.4% of the 68 records versus 75.0% for A61N electrotherapy hardware claims, and healthcare informatics (G16H) and specific-application computing (G16Z) each appear in just 1.5%. Orientation-sensing and placement-verification methods, exemplified by the 2022 ClearPoint Neuro filing, also look like an active rather than saturated area given they postdate the field's 2017 filing peak. Any whitespace filing should still be checked against the leading assignee's software-side claims before relying on this gap.
Research Directional DBS Leads and Segmented Contacts in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole directional dbs leads and segmented contacts 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.