Endoscopic Device Safety Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- Filing has cooled from its 2021 peak. 77 families filed in 2021 against 34 in 2017, with the midpoint year 2022 already back down to 16 — this is a flat-to-declining filing curve, not a growth story.
- Claim activity concentrates hard in one subclass. 758 of 865 families touch A61B (diagnosis and surgery), while electrotherapy (A61N, 160) and body-fluid devices (A61M, 85) trail well behind — most of the crowded prior art sits in one place.
- Several long-standing filers went to zero last year. Multiple established assignees, including major medical device names, show 0 filings and -100% year-on-year in the latest period — momentum has shifted away from the historical leaders.
Filing growth compares 2021 (77 records) with 2024 (54) — 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 865 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent families filed between 2015 and 2026 that combine endoscopic or endoscopy-related devices with claims on biocompatibility compliance, electrical safety or sterilization compliance. The corpus spans 865 published families, concentrated overwhelmingly in diagnosis and surgery hardware (A61B) but reaching into electrotherapy, fluid-handling devices, optics and even healthcare informatics.
Filing offices are led by the United States, followed by the EPO and WIPO's PCT route, with Japan, Australia and Canada rounding out the picture — a filing footprint typical of a mature medical device field where regulatory clearance drives where applicants seek protection. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent year in any trend here understates real filing activity.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 865-family corpus: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how that volume splits across the IPC subclasses that define the technical scope of endoscopic safety and compliance claims.
A peak in 2021, then decline
Annual filings rose from 34 in 2017 to a peak of 77 in 2021, then fell back to 16 by 2022 and continued lower into the partial final year. Read the tail end cautiously: recent years are undercounted because publication trails filing by around 18 months, but the multi-year direction is down, not up.
A61B dominates the composition
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) accounts for 758 of 865 records, dwarfing A61N electrotherapy (160), A61M body-fluid devices (85) and G02B optics (74). Smaller pockets in G16H healthcare informatics, H01F magnetics and H04N video/imaging (22-25 each) mark adjacent branches that are technically relevant but far less claimed.
Shares are the percentage of the 865 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Endoscopic Device Safety and Compliance with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about endoscopic device safety and compliance and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Endoscopy arrangement with galvanic isolation and associated method
Filed by Scholly Fiberoptic and granted as US10637689B2, this patent addresses a real tension in endoscopic camera design: transmitting a high-quality image signal from sensor to controller over a cable while meeting electrical safety standards. Its solution places galvanic isolation downstream of the cable's proximal end, paired with an impedance-matching circuit, so signal quality does not have to be traded off against patient and operator safety.Granted 2020-04-28.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20120016239A1 | Systems for cosmetic treatment | 1,387 |
| 2 | US20190201045A1 | Method for smoke evacuation for surgical hub | 1,323 |
| 3 | US5868664A | Electrically isolated sterilizable endoscopic video camera head | 709 |
| 4 | US20190201087A1 | Smoke evacuation system including a segmented control circuit for interactive surgical platform | 479 |
| 5 | US5312400A | Cautery probes for endoscopic electrosurgical suction-irrigation instrument | 462 |
| 6 | US5336220A | Tubing for endoscopic electrosurgical suction-irrigation instrument | 457 |
| 7 | US8500728B2 | Enhanced control systems including flexible shielding and support systems for electrosurgical applications | 456 |
| 8 | US20190069949A1 | Systems and methods for modulatng nerves or other tissue | 449 |
| 9 | US10755813B2 | Communication of smoke evacuation system parameters to hub or cloud in smoke evacuation module for interactiv… | 422 |
| 10 | US4582067A | Method for endoscopic blood flow detection by the use of ultrasonic energy | 396 |
Citation counts are drawn from within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings by construction — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not as a ranking of current importance. The oldest entry here, a 1990s isolated video camera head patent, still draws hundreds of citations, underscoring how foundational electrical-isolation designs remain a reference point.
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 signal
Three read-outs from the filing and citation data that matter for anyone deciding where to file next or who to watch.
The field has passed its filing peak
Annual filings climbed from 34 in 2017 to 77 in 2021, then dropped sharply to 16 by 2022. That is a mature-field profile: early consolidation of core electrical-safety and sterilization claims, followed by fewer new entrants willing to file into occupied space.
Almost all claim density sits in one subclass
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) carries the large majority of records, meaning most prior art risk and most freedom-to-operate work concentrates there. A61N, A61M and G02B carry meaningfully less volume and are worth checking separately rather than assuming A61B search coverage extends to them.
Historical leaders have gone quiet
Multiple long-running assignees in this space show zero filings in the latest year and a -100% year-on-year change. That does not necessarily mean exit from the field — it may reflect filing pauses, portfolio consolidation, or a shift toward trade secrecy for incremental safety features.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to endoscopic device safety and compliance, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is active, and where the gaps sit
The assignee base includes global medical device manufacturers, universities and smaller specialty filers, several of whom co-file with government or academic partners rather than filing solo.
Co-assignment is limited but pointed
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear across the corpus. The strongest link, a university board filing jointly with a federal veterans' health agency, suggests publicly-funded research contributing directly into safety and compliance claims rather than pure industry R&D.
Filing footprint follows US and European regulatory gates
The United States leads receiving offices by a wide margin, followed by the EPO and the WIPO PCT route. Japan, Australia and Canada each receive a smaller but consistent share, consistent with applicants pursuing protection in the jurisdictions where clinical and regulatory approval is also sought.
Foundational patents still anchor the field
The most-cited records in this corpus date back years or decades, including an isolated endoscopic video camera head patent from the 1990s still drawing hundreds of citations. New filers should expect any electrical-isolation or camera-head claim to be checked against this older art first.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| HistoSonics, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Olympus Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Ulthera, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Creo Medical Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Olympus Medical Systems Corp. | 0 | — |
| Boston Scientific International Ltd. | 0 | — |
| The Regents of the University of Michigan | 0 | — |
| Symbiosis Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing and citation patterns above point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or new filing strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on A61B claims
With 758 of 865 records sitting in A61B, any new endoscopic safety design should be checked against this subclass first, rather than assuming a general prior-art search covers it.
Explore A61B prior art in EurekaTrack assignees that went quiet
Several established filers dropped to zero filings in the latest year. Understanding whether that reflects strategic withdrawal, consolidation, or a shift to trade secrecy changes how competitive that space actually is.
Monitor assignee activity in EurekaScope the under-claimed branches
Smaller IPC pockets in electrotherapy, optics and healthcare informatics carry far less filing volume than A61B and may offer more room for a defensible first claim.
Search adjacent IPC classes in EurekaCommon questions on endoscopic device safety patents
This dataset identifies 865 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine endoscope or endoscopic device claims with biocompatibility compliance, electrical safety, or sterilization compliance language. That figure counts patent families rather than raw document counts, which gives a fairer picture because it neutralises duplicate filings across jurisdictions and continuation applications from the same underlying invention. The true figure for the most recent year is understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
No. Filing volume peaked at 77 families in 2021, up from 34 in 2017, but had already fallen to 16 by 2022 and continued lower into the most recent partial year. This is a flat-to-declining trend rather than a growth curve, which typically signals that core claim territory, particularly around electrical isolation and sterilization methods, is already well occupied. New entrants should expect denser prior art in the areas with the highest historical filing volume.
A61B, the IPC subclass covering diagnosis and surgery devices, accounts for 758 of the 865 records in this corpus, making it by far the most heavily claimed area. A61N (electrotherapy and radiation therapy) and A61M (devices for body fluids) follow at much lower volumes of 160 and 85 respectively. Optics (G02B), healthcare informatics (G16H) and video/imaging (H04N) appear in smaller numbers, marking technically adjacent but comparatively under-claimed branches.
US10637689B2, assigned to Scholly Fiberoptic and granted in April 2020, covers an endoscopy arrangement that places galvanic isolation downstream of the cable's proximal end, combined with an impedance-matching circuit, to preserve image signal quality while meeting electrical safety standards. It is a specific circuit-topology solution to the tradeoff between signal fidelity and patient/operator electrical isolation in endoscopic camera systems. Anyone designing an endoscope camera head with galvanic isolation should review its claim scope closely, particularly around where the isolation boundary sits relative to the cable and controller.
The assignee base spans global medical device manufacturers, specialty endoscopy firms, and academic or government co-filers, with the ranking table showing concentration among a handful of repeat filers alongside a long tail of single-filing entrants. Notably, several established assignees in this dataset show zero filings in the latest year with -100% year-on-year change, indicating that historical leaders have slowed or paused activity rather than continuing to expand their portfolios. That shift makes recent-year momentum, not historical volume alone, an important signal for anyone assessing current competitive intensity.
Research Endoscopic Device Safety and Compliance in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole endoscopic device safety and compliance 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.