Eye Tracking Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- Filing has cooled, not grown. Annual filings rose from 26 in 2017 to a peak of 51 in 2022, then eased back — a flat-to-declining trend rather than an accelerating one.
- Diagnosis and surgery dominates the IPC mix. A61B appears in 303 of 386 families, well ahead of the 189 that touch general computing (G06F), showing clinical and ophthalmic use cases anchor the field.
- The oldest patents still carry the most weight. The five most-cited records date from 1993 to 2013, led by a 452-citation calibration patent — current filers are building on decades-old foundational claims.
Filing growth compares 2021 (27 records) with 2024 (44) — 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 386 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the eye tracking patent record shows
Eye tracking patenting spans two overlapping worlds: consumer and mixed-reality gaze interaction claimed under G06F3/013, and clinical or ophthalmic gaze measurement claimed under A61B3/113. The dataset behind this page — 386 patent families filed between 2015 and mid-2026 — sits at the intersection, pulled by a search string that requires both an eye-tracking term in the title/abstract and a specific technical concept such as pupil detection, gaze estimation or foveated tracking.
Filing activity climbed steadily through the late 2010s, peaked in 2022, and has since flattened. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the final one or two years in any trend chart will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be — the 2026 figure in particular should be read as incomplete rather than as a genuine drop-off.
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
Two views of the same 386-family dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A flat-to-declining filing curve
Filings rose from 26 in 2017 to a peak of 51 in 2022 before easing. A midpoint year matching the peak signals a market that expanded through the late 2010s and has since plateaued, rather than one still accelerating into 2026.
Clinical claims outweigh consumer computing claims
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) covers 303 of 386 records, ahead of G06F (189), G06V image recognition (105) and G06T image processing (96). G02B optics (81), G06K recognition/presentation (68), H04N video communication (51) and A61F implants (33) round out a field where ophthalmic and diagnostic applications carry more claim density than pure consumer-device interaction.
Shares are the percentage of the 386 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Eye Tracking Technology Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about eye tracking technology landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited patents in the corpus
US20230005180A1 — Eye tracking system (Tobii AB, 2023-01-05)
An eye tracking system provides a quality measure of a calculated gaze of a user. The eye tracking system receives gaze data including left eye gaze data associated with a left eye of the user and right eye gaze data associated with a right eye of the user. The eye tracking system compares the left eye gaze data and the right eye gaze data to determine a gaze difference value. The eye tracking system provides a gaze quality value of the gaze data based on the gaze difference value.Notable for claiming a quality signal derived from comparing binocular gaze data, rather than a single-eye gaze calculation — a narrower and more defensible claim shape than early single-camera approaches.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5231674A | Eye tracking method and apparatus | 452 |
| 2 | US20050024586A1 | Multidimensional eye tracking and position measurement system for diagnosis and treatment of the eye | 418 |
| 3 | US20050175218A1 | Method and apparatus for calibration-free eye tracking using multiple glints or surface reflections | 399 |
| 4 | US20130308099A1 | Eye tracking headset and system for neuropsychological testing including the detection of brain damage | 161 |
| 5 | US6322216B1 | Two camera off-axis eye tracker for laser eye surgery | 156 |
| 6 | US20140226131A1 | Systems and methods of eye tracking calibration | 130 |
| 7 | US7809160B2 | Method and apparatus for calibration-free eye tracking using multiple glints or surface reflections | 119 |
| 8 | WO2002064031A2 | Multidimensional eye tracking and position measurement system | 118 |
| 9 | US20110170067A1 | Eye-gaze tracking device, eye-gaze tracking method, electro-oculography measuring device, wearable camera, he… | 116 |
| 10 | US20160029883A1 | Eye tracking calibration | 113 |
Citation counts are drawn from within the searched corpus and favor older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations — treat them as a measure of influence on subsequent filers, not 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 signals stand out once the family-level data is normalized for jurisdiction and continuation filing.
Growth has plateaued since the 2022 peak
Filings rose from 26 in 2017 to 51 in 2022, then declined toward 2026. Combined with an 18-month publication lag, the true 2025-2026 volume is likely higher than currently visible, but the multi-year plateau pattern is already established.
US filings lead, but PCT and EPO carry real weight
United States filings (184) outnumber the European Patent Office (75) and WIPO/PCT (37) combined roughly two-to-one, with Canada (21), Australia (15) and Israel (12) rounding out a filing footprint concentrated in a handful of English-speaking and European offices.
Foundational claims from the 1990s-2010s still anchor the field
The five most-cited records span US5231674A (452 citations) through US6322216B1 (156 citations), filed between 1993 and roughly 2013. New entrants are building on, or designing around, calibration and glint-based gaze-estimation methods established well over a decade ago.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to eye tracking technology landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Visx, Incorporated | YEE KINGMAN | 8 |
| Visx, Incorporated | MUNNERLYN CHARLES R | 6 |
| Magic Leap, Inc. | University of Washington | 4 |
| Neurolens, Inc. | Newton Inc. | 4 |
| Neurolens, Inc. | Eyebrain Medical, Inc. | 3 |
| Eyebrain Medical, Inc. | Newton Inc. | 2 |
| Queen's University | VERTEGAAL ROEL | 1 |
| Queen's University | SOHN CHANGUK | 1 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, the strongest linking a single assignee to two individual inventors — evidence of a field built mostly on solo corporate filing rather than joint ventures or research consortia.
Who holds the claims, and where momentum has stalled
Recent-year momentum data shows a field where the named leaders have gone quiet rather than accelerated, which changes how a freedom-to-operate review should weight their older grants.
Two prominent assignees show zero filings in the latest year
Tobii and Magic Leap both recorded 0 filings in the most recent year, a -100% year-over-year change. Given the publication lag, this may partly reflect filings still in the pipeline, but it is consistent with a broader plateau rather than isolated to one company.
Collaboration is rare and narrow where it exists
The strongest co-assignee pair in the dataset links one company to a single named inventor across 8 shared filings; the next strongest pairs involve similarly narrow, individual-to-company relationships rather than cross-company alliances.
A long tail sits beneath a small set of named assignees
Beyond the handful of companies with double-digit filing histories, most of the 386 families in this corpus trace to single-filing or low-volume entrants, a pattern typical of a technology area with academic, medical-device and startup participation alongside a few established consumer-hardware players.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Tobii AB | 0 | -100% |
| Magic Leap, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Visx, Incorporated | 0 | — |
| Neurolens, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Eyebrain Medical, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Oculogica, Inc. | 0 | — |
| SENSOMOTORIC INSTR GES FUR INNOVATIVE SENSORIK | 0 | — |
| Sensomotoric Instruments (SMI) | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing and citation patterns above point to specific follow-up questions rather than a single conclusion.
Map claim scope against the top-cited patents
Before filing in gaze-estimation or calibration methods, check claim language against the foundational 1990s-2010s records that still accumulate citations — they define the boundaries most new filings are drafted around.
Explore claims in EurekaTrack the quiet assignees for renewed activity
Companies showing 0 filings in the latest year may resume once pipeline filings publish. A watch list tied to publication dates avoids mistaking the 18-month lag for genuine exit.
Set up assignee trackingTest the under-claimed branches for a filing angle
Sub-areas such as binocular gaze-quality scoring or event-camera pupil detection show comparatively thin claim density relative to core calibration methods, which may leave room for a defensible first claim.
Run a white space searchCommon questions about eye tracking patents
The most-cited records in this corpus, led by US5231674A with 452 citations and US20050024586A1 with 418, date from the 1990s through the mid-2000s and establish the core methods for calibration-free gaze tracking and multi-glint reflection measurement. Later filers, including consumer and mixed-reality hardware makers, build directly on these calibration and glint-based approaches. Anyone drafting new claims in gaze estimation should review these older patents first, since their expiry status and claim scope shape what remains open to file around.
Filing volume rose from 26 in 2017 to a peak of 51 in 2022 and has since leveled off or declined, based on the 386 families in this dataset. Because patent publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, the most recent one to two years understate true activity, but the multi-year plateau pattern predates that lag effect. This points to a technology area that expanded through the late 2010s and has since matured rather than one still in a growth phase.
Momentum data shows some of the most historically prominent assignees, including Tobii and Magic Leap, recording zero filings in the latest tracked year, a -100% year-over-year change for both. This does not necessarily mean exit from the field, since recent filings may still be working through the publication pipeline, but it does mean current activity should be verified directly rather than assumed from historical filing counts alone.
In this dataset the terms overlap heavily rather than splitting cleanly: the search combines eye-tracking terminology with specific technical concepts like gaze estimation, pupil detection and foveated tracking, and IPC classification shows most records touching both A61B3/113 (ophthalmic diagnostic use) and G06F3/013 (computer interaction use). A given patent's classification generally reflects its primary application — clinical measurement versus device interaction — more than a difference in the underlying gaze-sensing technique.
Relative to the dense claim territory around core calibration and gaze-estimation methods, sub-areas including binocular gaze-quality scoring, event-camera-based pupil detection, and foveated-rendering trigger logic show thinner filing density in this corpus. That does not guarantee an open field, since some of this may reflect narrower commercial interest rather than true white space, but it is where a freedom-to-operate search is most likely to surface room for a defensible first claim rather than a crowded one.
Research Eye Tracking Technology Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole eye tracking technology landscape 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.