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 →This landscape tracks patent families filed against haptic feedback, tactile actuators and force feedback devices, narrowed to filings that specify actuator bandwidth, localized haptics, perceptual modeling, power efficiency or ultrasonic mid-air haptics. The scope sits at the intersection of digital interface control (G06F3), electromechanical actuation (H02N2) and mechanical vibration generation (B06B1), which is where most commercially deployed haptic systems are actually claimed.
Coverage runs from 2015 through the middle of 2026, though the final year is necessarily incomplete: publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so recent-year counts understate real filing activity. Receiving-office data shows the United States and the European Patent Office carrying the bulk of filings, with India and WIPO PCT routes also carrying meaningful volume.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
130 patent families make up this dataset, spanning eight IPC subclasses and six receiving offices. The shape of the trend line and the concentration of subclasses both point to a field that built up early and has since plateaued.
From a single filing in 2017, activity built steadily to a peak of 15 families in 2025. The 2022 midpoint of 5 confirms this was gradual accumulation rather than a spike, and the drop-off into 2026 (partial year) is consistent with a maturing rather than an emerging field.
G06F covers all 130 records, far ahead of G08B (signalling/alarm, 14), A63F (games, 11) and B06B (mechanical vibration generation, 10). Hardware-actuation classes like H10N (7) trail well behind, indicating that most current claim activity sits in how haptic signals are generated and controlled in software rather than in new transducer physics.
Shares are the percentage of the 130 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about haptic feedback technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaTechniques are provided that employ haptic feedback to influence an engagement level of a remote user. One method comprises obtaining sensor data associated with a remote user interacting with educational content items; applying the sensor data to an analytics engine to obtain an engagement status indicating an engagement level of the remote user with the educational content items; and automatically initiating a provision of a haptic feedback signal to the remote user based on the engagement status.Filed by Dell Products L.P., published 2023-07-06 as US20230215288A1.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6864877B2 | Directional tactile feedback for haptic feedback interface devices | 208 |
| 2 | US20020080112A1 | Directional tactile feedback for haptic feedback interface devices | 178 |
| 3 | US20090072662A1 | Electronic device and circuit for providing tactile feedback | 167 |
| 4 | US8981682B2 | Asymmetric and general vibration waveforms from multiple synchronized vibration actuators | 109 |
| 5 | US6762745B1 | Actuator control providing linear and continuous force output | 105 |
| 6 | US20050052415A1 | Directional tactile feedback for haptic feedback interface devices | 86 |
| 7 | US20190079584A1 | Input device with haptic interface | 74 |
| 8 | WO2011049609A2 | Flexure assemblies and fixtures for haptic feedback | 63 |
| 9 | US20080068334A1 | Localized Haptic Feedback | 50 |
| 10 | US20050030284A1 | Directional tactile feedback for haptic feedback interface devices | 49 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings by design — treat them as a signal of influence on later claim drafting, not of current commercial weight.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
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 →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 →Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are set against each other: where the claim density sits, what still gets cited, and how collaboration shows up in the filing record.
Every family in this dataset touches G06F, the digital-data-processing subclass. Hardware actuation (H10N, B06B) is present but thinner, which means new entrants competing purely on transducer design face less prior art than those competing on control logic, waveform generation or perceptual mapping.
The two most-cited records in the corpus both cover directional tactile feedback and date to the early 2000s. Their continued citation weight suggests later filings are still drafting around, rather than past, these foundational actuator-control claims.
Filing rose from 1 family in 2017 to a peak of 15 in 2025, with the 2022 midpoint at 5. That trajectory reads as steady build-up followed by a plateau rather than a field still in early acceleration.
Only six co-assignee pairs appear across 130 families, and the strongest pairing recurs three times. Most patents in this space are filed by a single assignee entity, with joint filings the exception rather than the norm.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to haptic feedback technology, with the prior art for and against each one.
Recent-year momentum data shows a striking pattern: the named assignees with the largest historical footprints — including Immersion, Microsoft, Dell, Logitech, Covestro and Google — all show zero filings in the latest tracked year, with Logitech recording a -100% year-on-year change. That is consistent with a field where the reference patents are largely in place and current activity has shifted toward smaller or newer filers not yet visible in the top ranks.
Immersion, historically one of the most active names in haptic actuator IP, shows no filings in the most recent tracked year in this dataset. The same is true across several other long-standing assignees, suggesting consolidation of claim positions rather than continued expansion.
Logitech's year-on-year change sits at -100%, the sharpest documented pullback among the tracked assignees. Combined with zero-filing years across Microsoft, Dell and Google, the recent-year picture looks more like a pause than a race.
The strongest co-assignee relationship recurs three times and involves two individual inventors rather than two companies. Cross-company joint filings are essentially absent from this corpus, meaning most IP positions here are built and defended solo.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Immersion Corporation | 0 | — |
| Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | 0 | — |
| Dell Products L.P. | 0 | — |
| Logitech Europe S.A. | 0 | -100% |
| Covestro Deutschland AG | 0 | — |
| Google LLC | 0 | — |
| United Active Drives, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Motorola, Inc. | 0 | — |
The filing trend and assignee momentum both point to a field settling into its established claim positions rather than expanding into new ones. Two directions follow from that.
Before drafting new actuator-control or directional-feedback claims, review how the most-cited early patents in this corpus have been designed around historically — that pattern is more instructive than the raw citation count.
Explore prior art in EurekaUltrasonic mid-air haptics and solid-state actuator materials carry far fewer families than the core G06F cluster. That gap is worth testing against your own technical roadmap before assuming it is saturated.
Map white space in EurekaWithin this corpus, the most-cited records are US6864877B2 and US20020080112A1, both covering directional tactile feedback for haptic interface devices, alongside US20090072662A1 on tactile feedback circuits and US8981682B2 on asymmetric vibration waveforms from synchronized actuators. These older filings continue to accumulate citations well ahead of more recent ones, which typically means later applicants have had to draft claims around them rather than simply superseding them. That makes them the practical starting point for any freedom-to-operate check in this space.
Not currently, based on this dataset. Filings rose from a single family in 2017 to a peak of 15 in 2025, with 2022 sitting at the midpoint of 5, which is a gradual build rather than a sudden surge. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the apparent drop into 2026 is partly an artefact of incomplete data, but the overall shape is flat-to-declining rather than accelerating. Treat the field as maturing rather than in an early growth phase.
G06F, covering electric digital data processing, appears in every single record in this dataset, making it the dominant classification by a wide margin. Behind it, G08B (signalling and alarm systems), A63F (games and amusements) and B06B (mechanical vibration generation) each carry meaningful but much smaller shares. This distribution indicates that most current patent activity concerns how haptic signals are generated, timed and controlled in software rather than new transducer or actuator hardware.
The clearest gaps sit in ultrasonic mid-air haptics, perceptual-model-driven waveform tuning, power-efficient actuator drive circuits, localized multi-point haptics and solid-state actuator materials under H10N — all thinly represented relative to the dominant G06F software-control cluster. These are technically specific enough that a well-drafted first claim could stake out real ground rather than fighting through dense prior art. That said, thin representation in a search corpus does not guarantee the branch is commercially untested elsewhere, so it warrants its own targeted search before filing.
The recent-year momentum data shows several long-established assignees, including Immersion, Microsoft, Dell, Logitech, Covestro and Google, at zero filings in the latest tracked year, with Logitech showing a -100% year-on-year change. This does not necessarily mean these companies have exited the space; it more likely reflects that their core claim positions are already staked out, combined with the normal 18-month publication lag understating true recent activity. It is worth revisiting this picture once later filing years fully publish.
Go past this page: query the whole haptic feedback technology 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.