https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/haptic-feedback-technology-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · XR & Human Interface
Haptic Feedback Technology Patents: Who Holds the Ground, and Where It's Thinning
  • Filing already peaked. 2025 was the high point at 15 families in this dataset, with 2022 sitting at the midpoint of 5 — the growth curve is flat to declining, not accelerating.
  • One IPC subclass dominates everything. G06F (electric digital data processing) touches all 130 records, meaning the fight is happening inside software-adjacent haptic control, not in the actuator hardware classes.
  • The oldest patents still cast the longest shadow. The two most-cited records date to the early 2000s and both cover directional tactile feedback — a sign that foundational actuator-control claims remain the reference point for later filings.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
130
Published Records
58%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+33%
3-Yr Growth (lag-adjusted)
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this landscape covers

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.

Filing activity and technology composition, 2017–2026
  1. 1IMMERSION CORP40
  2. 2MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC11
  3. 3DELL PROD LP10
  4. 4LOGITECH EUROPE SA8
  5. 5COVESTRO DEUTSCHLAND AG6
  6. 6GENERAL VIBRATION CORP4
  7. 7GOOGLE LLC4
  8. 8DONG WOON ANATECH CO LTD4
  9. 9GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LLC3
  10. 10MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC3
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Haptic Feedback Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
The Numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

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.

Filing trend: a 2025 peak, then flattening

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.

Filing trend: a 2025 peak, then flattening048111512017201820192020202120222023202415202502026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

IPC composition: software-adjacent control leads

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.

IPC composition: software-adjacent control leadsG06F · Electric digital data processi…130100.0%G08B · Signalling & alarm systems1410.8%A63F · Games & amusements118.5%B06B · Generating mechanical vibratio…107.7%A61B · Diagnosis & surgery86.2%G06N · Computing based on AI models86.2%G06T · Image data processing & genera…75.4%H10N · Other electric solid-state dev…75.4%Other6953.1%

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%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Haptic Feedback Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Haptic Feedback Technology with Eureka

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 Eureka
Key Patents

The patents setting the reference points

Representative Filing
US20230215288A12023-07-06

Haptic feedback for influencing user engagement level with remote educational content

DELL PRODUCTS L.P.

Techniques 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.

US20230215288A1 — patent drawing 1US20230215288A1 — patent drawing 2
View full record
Most-cited records in this corpus
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US6864877B2Directional tactile feedback for haptic feedback interface devices208
2US20020080112A1Directional tactile feedback for haptic feedback interface devices178
3US20090072662A1Electronic device and circuit for providing tactile feedback167
4US8981682B2Asymmetric and general vibration waveforms from multiple synchronized vibration actuators109
5US6762745B1Actuator control providing linear and continuous force output105
6US20050052415A1Directional tactile feedback for haptic feedback interface devices86
7US20190079584A1Input device with haptic interface74
8WO2011049609A2Flexure assemblies and fixtures for haptic feedback63
9US20080068334A1Localized Haptic Feedback50
10US20050030284A1Directional tactile feedback for haptic feedback interface devices49

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.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Haptic Feedback Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
Fastest

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 →
For builders

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 →
Insights

What the data actually signals

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.

Claim Density
130 records in G06F
of 130 total families

Software-side control is the crowded lane

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.

IPC subclass distribution
Citation Anchors
208 citations
US6864877B2

Early directional-feedback claims still anchor the field

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.

Most-cited records
Filing Momentum
15 families
peak year (2025)

Growth has flattened, not accelerated

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.

Filing trend, 2017–2026
Collaboration
6 co-assignee pairs
across the corpus

Co-filing is rare and concentrated

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.

Co-assignee pairs
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

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.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Haptic Feedback Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players

Who is filing, and where the momentum has stalled

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.

Momentum Signal
0
latest-year filings, Immersion

Legacy leaders have gone quiet

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.

Recent-year momentum
Momentum Signal
-100% YoY
Logitech

Even active filers are pulling back

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.

Recent-year momentum
Filing Pattern
6 pairs
co-assignee filings

Collaboration stays inside single organisations

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.

Co-assignee pairs
🔍
Under-claimed sub-areas worth scouting
Branches with thin representation relative to the core G06F cluster
ultrasonic mid-air hapticsperceptual-model-driven waveform tuningpower-efficient actuator drive circuitslocalized multi-point hapticssolid-state actuator materials (H10N)
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Immersion Corporation0
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC0
Dell Products L.P.0
Logitech Europe S.A.0-100%
Covestro Deutschland AG0
Google LLC0
United Active Drives, Inc.0
Motorola, Inc.0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Haptic Feedback Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next

Where to take this next

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.

Check freedom-to-operate against the citation anchors

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 Eureka

Scout the under-claimed branches directly

Ultrasonic 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 Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Haptic Feedback Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on haptic feedback patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Haptic Feedback Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Haptic Feedback Technology in depth with Eureka

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.

Try Eureka

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.