Freeform Progressive Lens Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Extreme concentration. the top 5 assignees hold 77.1% of all 536 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 92.4% — this is a field with almost no long tail.
- Filing has cooled from its 2019 peak of 32. the leading assignees show 0 filings in the latest year, though publication lag means recent years are still filling in.
- Claims cluster tightly in G02C. 500 of 536 records (93.3%) sit in spectacles-and-lenses classification, with digital-processing and grinding/polishing classes trailing well behind.
Filing growth compares 2021 (8 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 536 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the freeform progressive lens patent record shows
Freeform progressive lens design covers the surfacing and optimization methods used to compute a wearer-specific progressive addition lens: how corridor length, peripheral astigmatism and individual wearer parameters are traded off across a single continuous surface. The dataset in scope spans 536 published records filed or published between 2015 and the 2026-07-31 cut-off, drawn from patent and application text matching design-method and wearer-parameter language rather than lens hardware generally.
The record set is dominated by a small number of large ophthalmic groups whose filings span design software, surface-optimization algorithms and the resulting lens products. Filing activity peaked in 2019 and has since declined toward the data cut-off, though the most recent one to two years are understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 536-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings rose to a peak of 32 in 2019, then declined; the 2021-to-2024 span shows an -88% drop (8 to 1), a figure that reflects both the field's early consolidation and the fact that later years are still being filled in as publications catch up with filing dates.
IPC subclass composition
G02C (spectacles and lenses) covers 93.3% of the 536 records, confirming this is overwhelmingly a lens-design field rather than a general optics one; G02B, A61B, G06F and G06Q each sit in the 6-9% range, marking secondary claim activity in optical systems, diagnostic measurement and computational design tooling.
Shares are the percentage of the 536 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Freeform Progressive Lens Design with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about freeform progressive lens design and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this dataset
Design system of progressive addition lens, design method of progressive addition lens, and progressive addition lens group
The filing describes a design system that sets the amount of transmission astigmatism added to a progressive addition lens by comparing it against a reference lens with a known aberration amount for the same wearer — in effect, calibrating one lens design against another to control how much peripheral astigmatism a wearer actually experiences.Filed by HOYA LENS THAILAND LTD., published 2021-11-18 as US20210356764A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20030107707A1 | Method and system for prescribing and/or dispensing ophthalmic lenses | 117 |
| 2 | US7159983B2 | Multifocal lenses for pre-presbyopic individuals | 112 |
| 3 | US5861935A | Progressive lens elements and methods for designing and using same | 109 |
| 4 | US20050122472A1 | Prescribing and/or dispensing ophthalmic lenses | 93 |
| 5 | WO2001062139A1 | Method and system for prescribing and/or dispensing ophthalmic lenses | 93 |
| 6 | US20080273169A1 | Multifocal Lens Having a Progressive Optical Power Region and a Discontinuity | 85 |
| 7 | US7229173B2 | Short corridor progressive addition lenses with reduced unwanted astigmatism | 84 |
| 8 | US7883207B2 | Refractive-diffractive multifocal lens | 77 |
| 9 | US20130027655A1 | Electro-Active Lenses Including Thin Glass Substrates | 73 |
| 10 | US6000798A | Ophthalmic optic devices | 66 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and favour older filings; treat them as a signal of influence on later design work, not of current commercial weight.
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 findings that shape where a new filing or design-around effort should start.
This field has almost no long tail
With the top 5 assignees holding 77.1% of all 536 records and the top 10 holding 92.4%, freeform progressive design claim space is dominated by a handful of large ophthalmic groups. A new entrant is filing directly adjacent to a small set of well-resourced incumbents, not into open ground.
The leaders have gone quiet — for now
Every one of the leading assignees shows zero filings in the latest year on record. That reads as a slowdown, but publication lag of roughly 18 months means 2025-2026 filings are still arriving; treat the drop as partial data, not proof the field is closed.
Claims sit almost entirely in one subclass
G02C covers 500 of the 536 records in scope. Secondary activity in G06F and G06Q (each 6.0%) points to computational design and dispensing-workflow claims layered on top of the core lens-surface subclass, rather than a separate technical branch.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to freeform progressive lens design, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
A small set of ophthalmic optics groups account for nearly all activity; the ranked list beyond them thins out quickly.
One assignee sets the pace
The leading assignee's record count (229) is more than six times the fifth-place figure (33), a gap wide enough that any design-around analysis should start with its portfolio first.
The ranking narrows fast after the top 10
By 10th place the record count is down to 12, and the top 10 together already account for 92.4% of all 536 records — the remaining 90 ranked companies share the balance.
Co-assignee activity is limited and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset at all, and the strongest pair shares 9 records together — collaboration is the exception here, not the norm, and it clusters around a small number of named inventors and one optics device company.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Essilor International | 0 | — |
| Carl Zeiss Vision Australia Holdings Ltd | 0 | — |
| PixelOptics Inc | 0 | — |
| HOYA Corporation | 0 | — |
| HOYA Lens Thailand Ltd | 0 | — |
| Sola International Holdings Ltd | 0 | — |
| Carl Zeiss Vision International GmbH | 0 | — |
| BLUM RONALD D | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a mature, concentrated field with narrow secondary branches still open. Two directions follow from that.
Map the leader's portfolio in detail
With one assignee holding 229 of 536 records, a design-around strategy has to start by understanding exactly which corridor-length and surface-optimization claims it holds before filing nearby.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaWatch the under-claimed branches
Wearer-parameter capture and adaptation-time measurement show far less filing density than the core G02C claims — these are worth a freedom-to-operate check before committing R&D spend.
Run a white space search in EurekaCommon questions on freeform progressive lens patents
One assignee dominates this dataset, holding 229 of the 536 records in scope — more than six times the count held by the fifth-ranked company (33). The top 5 assignees together account for 77.1% of all records, and the top 10 account for 92.4%, so the field is best understood as a small group of large ophthalmic optics companies plus a long, thin tail of single- or few-filing entrants. Any competitive analysis in this space should treat the leader's portfolio as the primary reference point rather than surveying the full ranked list evenly.
Filing activity peaked in 2019 at 32 records and has declined since, with a documented drop of 88% between 2021 (8 filings) and 2024 (1 filing). However, publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset will understate true activity and should not yet be read as a sustained slowdown. The most reliable read is that the field consolidated its core claims earlier in the period and filing has become more selective since.
The overwhelming majority of records (93.3%) sit in IPC subclass G02C, spectacles and lenses, confirming this is fundamentally a lens-design field. Secondary overlap appears in G02B optical elements (8.8%), A61B diagnosis and measurement (8.0%), and computational subclasses G06F and G06Q (6.0% each), reflecting the role of digital surfacing software and prescribing/dispensing workflows alongside the physical lens claims. B24B grinding and polishing (5.2%) and A61F implants (3.4%) show smaller manufacturing and medical-device crossovers.
US20210356764A1, filed by HOYA LENS THAILAND LTD. and published 2021-11-18, describes a design system that sets the amount of transmission astigmatism added to a progressive lens by referencing it against a known aberration amount in a comparison lens for the same wearer. In practical terms, it claims a calibration method for controlling peripheral astigmatism experienced by a specific wearer, rather than a particular lens shape or material. Anyone designing a wearer-calibrated aberration-control workflow should review this filing's claim scope closely before proceeding.
The core corridor-length and surface-optimization claims under G02C are heavily occupied, but adjacent branches show noticeably thinner filing density, including peripheral astigmatism sensing integration, adaptation-time measurement methods, and mobile or AR-based wearer-parameter capture. These sit at the intersection of the dominant G02C classification and the smaller G06F/A61B classes, suggesting under-claimed combinations rather than an entirely open technical area. A freedom-to-operate search focused specifically on these combinations is a more productive starting point than searching the core lens-surface claims, which the leading assignees already occupy densely.
Research Freeform Progressive Lens Design in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole freeform progressive lens design 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.