Endoscopic Device Process Automation Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Filing activity peaked in 2022 at 11 families and has since flattened, suggesting the core assembly-automation claim space filled quickly rather than continuing to expand.
- A61B (diagnosis & surgery) dominates with 37 of 60 records while adjacent classes like H01L semiconductors and H04R audio transducers each hold only 7, pointing to thin coverage outside the core imaging/scope hardware.
- No single assignee shows filing activity in the latest year across every tracked organisation, recent-year momentum reads zero, consistent with an 18-month publication lag masking newer filings.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 60 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine endoscope or endoscopic device terminology with automated assembly, single-use production automation, or automated manufacturing language in the title, abstract or claims. It captures the intersection of surgical/diagnostic scope hardware and the manufacturing-automation processes used to build or assemble that hardware, rather than automation of the clinical procedure itself.
Filing activity is concentrated in a narrow window: activity was effectively absent before 2017, rose to a peak of 11 families in 2022, and has not exceeded that level since. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years in the trend understate real filing volume and should be read as provisional.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Sixty families, one flat-then-declining filing curve, and a technology mix weighted heavily toward core scope and imaging hardware rather than the manufacturing-automation processes named in the search.
A single peak year, no renewed acceleration
The filing trend rises from zero in 2017 to a peak of 11 families in 2022, then holds flat or declines through the most recent partial year. There is no second wave visible in the data, which is unusual for a manufacturing-automation theme layered on an active clinical device category — it suggests the automation-specific claim language was staked out early and has not been revisited at volume since.
Imaging and fluid-handling hardware outweigh the automation classes
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) accounts for 37 of 60 records, more than double the next three classes combined. G02B (optical systems, 14) and A61M (body-fluid devices, 12) follow as the next-largest groups. The manufacturing-adjacent classes — H01L semiconductor devices and H02J power supply, each at 6-7 — sit well behind, indicating that most filings describe the endoscopic hardware being automated rather than the automation process itself.
Shares are the percentage of the 60 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Endoscopic Device Process Automation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about endoscopic device process automation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art in this space
Multi-dimensional imaging system for endoscope (US5200819A)
An image acquisition system employs elemental and/or lateral effect detectors in conjunction with an optical scanner which provides a beam of radiation tracing out a raster to illuminate an object. The system generates an electrical signal which is processed to generate data indicative of a two or three dimensional image of an object, in spectrally selective monochromatic wavelengths or broadband regions. An endoscope is designed to make particular use of this image generating system, providing a data matrix of two and three dimensional coordinates with radiation intensity at each coordinate plus spectrally dependent image processing.Filed by The University of Connecticut; issued 1993-04-06. One of the highest-cited records in this corpus and a foundational reference for multi-dimensional endoscopic imaging claims.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20190247050A1 | Integrated system for the infixion and retrieval of implants | 449 |
| 2 | US5200838A | Lateral effect imaging system | 220 |
| 3 | US6471710B1 | Probe position sensing system and method of employment of same | 216 |
| 4 | US5109276A | Multi-dimensional multi-spectral imaging system | 214 |
| 5 | US5200819A | Multi-dimensional imaging system for endoscope | 100 |
| 6 | US20070127756A1 | Method and Apparatus for Ear Canal Surface Modeling Using Optical Coherence Tomography Imaging | 69 |
| 7 | WO2001013060A1 | Probe position sensing system for use in a coordinate measuring machine | 51 |
| 8 | US5376201A | Method of manufacturing an image magnification device | 40 |
| 9 | US20030181940A1 | Ventricular restoration shaping apparatus and method of use | 25 |
| 10 | US11389171B2 | Integrated system for the infixion and retrieval of implants | 24 |
Citation counts accumulate over time and favour older filings; treat them as a signal of influence within this searched corpus, not as a measure of current commercial 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 families, IPC codes and citation counts are read together: a stalled filing curve, a lopsided technology mix, and citation weight sitting on decades-old imaging patents rather than recent automation claims.
The curve flattened after 2022
Activity built from zero in 2017 to a peak of 11 families in 2022 and has not returned to that level. Combined with an 18-month publication lag, this could reflect either a genuine slowdown in automation-specific filing or a pending wave not yet visible in published data.
Core scope hardware dominates the corpus
A61B outweighs every other IPC subclass combined among the smaller classes. G02B optics and A61M fluid-handling devices are the next most populated, while semiconductor (H01L) and power (H02J) classes each sit at only 6-7 records — the manufacturing-process side of this search term is thinly claimed relative to the device side.
Influence sits with older imaging patents
The most-cited records in this corpus date back to the early 1990s and concern imaging and probe-position sensing rather than assembly automation. High citation counts here mark foundational prior art that later filings build on, not current filing activity.
Filing is US-centred with a PCT tail
Half the corpus was filed at the USPTO, with WIPO (PCT) and EPO the next most common routes at 10 and 9 respectively. Japan, Australia and India each account for a handful of records, indicating limited multi-jurisdiction filing strategy across most assignees.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to endoscopic device process automation, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is active, and where the field is still open
No assignee in this dataset shows filing activity in the latest tracked year, and co-assignment is rare — only three co-filing pairs appear across the entire corpus. That points to a field of largely independent filers rather than a small set of firms racing each other.
Filing is mostly solo, not collaborative
Only three co-assignee pairs appear across 60 families, each involving a single shared filing rather than a sustained partnership. Most organisations in this space file independently, which is consistent with a technology area still being staked out by individual labs and device makers rather than consolidated through joint development.
Every tracked assignee shows a quiet latest year
Across the organisations with the strongest filing history in this corpus, recent-year activity reads as zero, including a -100% YoY reading for one individual filer. Given the typical 18-month lag between filing and publication, this is more likely a reporting gap than a genuine stop in R&D.
Academic filings anchor the citation record
The most-cited record in the corpus originates from a university rather than a device manufacturer, underscoring that foundational imaging IP in this space came out of academic research before commercial assignees built on it.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Boston Scientific International | 0 | — |
| University of Connecticut | 0 | — |
| Intuitive Surgical Operations | 0 | — |
| Hemidyna Pte Ltd | 0 | — |
| GOLDSMITH DAVID S | 0 | -100% |
| Aesculap IP Management | 0 | — |
| Abe Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Advanced Sensor Technologies Ltd | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing trend and IPC mix point to specific next steps for teams deciding where to file or which prior art to clear first.
Check the automation-specific claim language directly
Because A61B device claims outnumber manufacturing-process claims in this corpus, a targeted search on assembly and single-use production automation language alone will show a smaller, more precise prior-art set than the full 60-family corpus.
Run a focused search in Eureka →Clear the highest-cited imaging patents before filing adjacent claims
The top-cited records in this corpus, including the 1990s imaging and probe-sensing families, remain reference points for infringement analysis on any new multi-dimensional endoscopic imaging claim.
Review citation trees in Eureka →Watch for the next publication wave
With every tracked assignee showing zero filings in the latest year and a known 18-month publication lag, the 2024-2026 period is the one to re-run once fresher data lands.
Set a watch in Eureka →Common questions about this landscape
This dataset covers patent families whose title, abstract or claims combine endoscope, endoscopic device or endoscopy terminology with automated assembly, single-use production automation, or automated manufacturing language. It is aimed at the manufacturing and assembly processes used to build endoscopic hardware, not automation of the clinical procedure a surgeon performs with the scope. Readers looking for procedure-automation or robotic-surgery patents should treat this as an adjacent but distinct search.
The dataset includes organisations such as Boston Scientific, the University of Connecticut, Intuitive Surgical, and several smaller assignees, but recent-year filing activity across all of them reads as zero in the most current tracked year. That flat recent picture is likely a publication-lag artifact rather than a genuine stop, since patent publication typically trails filing by around 18 months. Co-filing between organisations is rare in this space, with only three co-assignee pairs across the full 60-family corpus, meaning most activity is independent rather than collaborative.
Filing rose from essentially zero in 2017 to a peak of 11 families in 2022, then held flat or declined through the most recent partial year of data. A flattening after a peak year is one of two things: either the core claim space around automated endoscope assembly filled quickly and later entrants found less room to file, or filings from 2023 onward simply have not published yet given the typical 18-month lag. The dataset alone cannot distinguish between these, so the 2024-2026 tail should be treated as provisional.
IPC composition is heavily weighted toward A61B diagnosis and surgery hardware, which accounts for 37 of 60 records, while classes tied to the manufacturing-automation side of the search — semiconductor devices, power supply systems and audio transducers — each hold only 6 to 7 records. That imbalance suggests process-automation claims specific to single-use scope assembly, semiconductor-integrated scope electronics, and automated power or fluid-line assembly remain comparatively thin relative to device-hardware claims, making them worth a closer freedom-to-operate look before filing there.
The highest-cited records in this corpus are worth reviewing first, starting with US20190247050A1 on implant infixion and retrieval systems and a cluster of early-1990s University of Connecticut imaging patents including US5200819A and US5200838A. These older imaging and probe-position-sensing patents carry the heaviest citation weight in the dataset, meaning later filings in multi-dimensional endoscopic imaging or probe sensing are likely to cite or need to design around them. Citation count favours age, so this list should be read as a map of foundational influence rather than of current market activity.
Research Endoscopic Device Process Automation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole endoscopic device process automation 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.