One assignee leads the ranked field with 94 of the 329 records in scope, well ahead of the rest of the table. The top 5 assignees combined hold 69.3% of all 329 records, and the top 10 combined reach 83.0%, so the field is concentrated at the top with a long tail of smaller filers below tenth place, which holds 7 records. Anyone entering this space should expect to negotiate around a small number of large portfolios rather than many similarly sized competitors.

Filings peaked in 2019 at 52 and, over the most recent complete-year window, fell from 37 in 2021 to 21 in 2024, a -43% change. That decline should not be extended into 2025 or 2026: publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent years in any filing trend always look artificially low until later data catches up. The honest read is that activity cooled from its 2019 high through 2024, with the current trajectory still unconfirmed.

The largest IPC class by far is G06F, electric digital data processing, present in 69.3% of the 329 records, ahead of G10K acoustics and sound generation at 28.0% and B06B mechanical vibration generation at 12.8%. Smaller but notable shares sit in G08B signalling and alarm systems, A61B diagnosis and surgery, and B60K vehicle propulsion, showing haptics claims are also being tied into automotive and medical applications. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages are each measured against the full 329-record base and are not mutually exclusive.

The United States is the largest single receiving office with 143 filings, followed by the European Patent Office at 44 and the WIPO/PCT route at 34. Israel, India and Australia each show smaller but meaningful filing counts, indicating that protection strategies extend beyond the traditional US-Europe filing axis. This spread suggests applicants with commercial ambitions in this space are pursuing multi-jurisdictional coverage rather than relying on a single filing office.

US20250093962A1, filed by SIM IP HXR LLC and published 2025-03-20, claims a specific way of visually and spatially representing object-to-object constraint using tendril-like tension cues, including single-handed menu adaptations built on the same gesture-tracking approach. It sits closer to the interaction-design layer than to transducer hardware, which matches the broader pattern in this dataset of G06F claims outnumbering G10K acoustics claims. Teams building gesture-driven haptic interfaces should review this filing's specific tension-and-distance mechanism closely rather than assume it only affects hardware-focused competitors.