Hearing Aid Feedback Cancellation Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The top 5 assignees account for 63.9% of all 147 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 81.6% — a field with a short list of gatekeepers rather than a diffuse crowd.
- Filing peaked in 2022. Annual filings reached 12 that year; the 2021-to-2024 span shows a -100% move, though 2025-2026 counts are still filling in as publications lag filing by roughly 18 months.
- Almost all of it sits in one class. H04R (loudspeakers & audio transducers) touches 88.4% of the 147 records, with speech analysis, filter and implant classes each present in single-digit percentages.
Filing growth compares 2021 (4 records) with 2024 (0) — 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 147 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Hearing aid feedback cancellation covers the adaptive-filter, howling-detection and added-stable-gain techniques used to suppress acoustic feedback in hearing devices — the whistling or howling that occurs when amplified sound re-enters the microphone. The dataset spans 147 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from applicants ranging from long-established hearing aid manufacturers to university and national research labs. Claims cluster around adaptive filtering, entrainment artifact suppression, vent size and delay constraint tradeoffs, and howling-detection logic.
The filing record is short but concentrated: a handful of assignees hold most of the documented activity, and the technology composition is dominated by a single IPC subclass. That combination — few players, one dense class — is the starting point for reading the rest of this page.
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 147 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims fall into.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings rose from 1 in 2017 to a peak of 12 in 2022, then declined through the 2021-to-2024 window (-100% over that span). Treat 2025 and 2026 as incomplete, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months — the apparent drop-off at the edge of the chart is a data-cutoff artifact as much as a market signal.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
H04R (loudspeakers & audio transducers) appears in 88.4% of the 147 records, far ahead of G10K (acoustics & sound generation) at 10.2% and A61B (diagnosis & surgery) and G10L (speech & audio analysis/synthesis) each at 6.8%. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to well over 100% and should be read individually against the 147-record base, not summed.
Shares are the percentage of the 147 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Hearing Aid Feedback Cancellation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about hearing aid feedback cancellation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative recent filing
US20240022864A1 — Deep learning-based method for acoustic feedback suppression in closed-loop system
A deep learning-based method for acoustic feedback suppression in a closed-loop system: an offline-trained suppression model processes an audio signal before it reaches the sound reproduction unit. The closed-loop system is modelled to generate a simulated unit impulse response of the acoustic feedback path, from which a maximum stable gain is calculated to generate the closed-loop signal.Filed by the Institute of Acoustics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, published 2024-01-18 — illustrates the shift toward learned models replacing hand-tuned adaptive filters for stable-gain estimation.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6480610B1 | Subband acoustic feedback cancellation in hearing aids | 118 |
| 2 | US20140369537A1 | Hearing assistance device with brain computer interface | 103 |
| 3 | EP2613566A1 | A listening device and a method of monitoring the fitting of an ear mould of a listening device | 77 |
| 4 | US20160119726A1 | Hearing assistance device with brain computer interface | 70 |
| 5 | US5910994A | Method and apparatus for suppressing acoustic feedback in an audio system | 69 |
| 6 | US7020297B2 | Subband acoustic feedback cancellation in hearing aids | 64 |
| 7 | US20040125973A1 | Subband acoustic feedback cancellation in hearing aids | 61 |
| 8 | US20130170660A1 | Listening device and a method of monitoring the fitting of an ear mould of a listening device | 56 |
| 9 | US20070104335A1 | Acoustic feedback suppression for audio amplification systems | 45 |
| 10 | US20030026442A1 | Subband acoustic feedback cancellation in hearing aids | 41 |
Citation counts favour older records simply by virtue of being searchable longer — read them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current technical importance.
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 filing strategy
Three patterns worth acting on before drafting claims in this space.
A short list of gatekeepers
The top 5 assignees combine for 94 of the 147 records in scope — 63.9% of the whole dataset. The top 10 push that to 81.6%. New entrants are filing into a field where a small number of established hearing aid manufacturers already occupy most of the claim space around adaptive filtering and feedback-path modelling.
One class carries almost everything
H04R (loudspeakers & audio transducers) appears in 88.4% of records, meaning nearly every filing in this dataset touches transducer-level claims in some form. Secondary classes — acoustics, speech processing, filters, implants — sit in the single digits, suggesting adjacent framing (software-only signal processing, diagnostic integration) is comparatively less crowded.
Peak has passed, edge years are incomplete
Filing activity peaked in 2022 and the 2021-to-2024 window shows a -100% move. That reading should not be extended to 2025-2026: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent years in any trend chart are always undercounted at the point of measurement.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to hearing aid feedback cancellation, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and what is still open
The ranked leaders account for most of the filing volume, but the momentum data shows even the largest names posting zero filings in the latest tracked year — consistent with the reporting lag rather than an exit from the field.
The largest single filer
The leading assignee holds 50 of the 147 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 6 and tenth place at 4 — a steep drop-off that marks this as a leader-and-long-tail field rather than an evenly distributed one.
Many single- or low-count filers
Beyond the top 10, the ranking thins quickly to firms with a handful of records each, including university and national-lab applicants alongside device manufacturers — a sign that academic and cross-disciplinary work continues to enter the field even where commercial concentration is high.
Collaboration is limited and shallow
Only 7 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, each linking a corporate assignee to a small number of named inventors rather than to another company. Cross-company joint filing is rare here — most of the concentrated activity is filed solo.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Oticon | 0 | — |
| Widex | 0 | -100% |
| Rion Company | 0 | — |
| Siemens Audiologische Technik GmbH | 0 | — |
| Phonak AG | 0 | — |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | — |
| National Research Council of Canada | 0 | — |
| Sonic Innovations Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, competitive tracking, or claim drafting.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top 5
With 63.9% of records held by five assignees, any new adaptive-filter or howling-detection claim should be checked against their portfolios first, not the long tail.
Run an FTO screen in EurekaTrack momentum past the reporting lag
Recent-year zeros across major assignees likely reflect the 18-month publication lag rather than reduced activity — worth re-checking as 2025-2026 data fills in.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaDraft around the under-claimed branches
Vent-size adaptation, entrainment-artifact suppression and delay-constrained filtering show thinner coverage than the core transducer class and merit a closer claim-scope check.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
The dataset ranks 40 assignees by record count, with a single leader holding 50 of the 147 records in scope — far ahead of fifth place at 6 and tenth place at 4. This is a leader-and-long-tail structure: the top 5 combined account for 63.9% of all records, and the top 10 reach 81.6%. Established hearing aid manufacturers dominate the upper ranks, with university and national-lab applicants appearing further down the list.
Filing activity peaked at 12 records in 2022, and the 2021-to-2024 window shows a -100% change over that span. However, publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend view are still incomplete and should not be read as a real decline. A fair read of momentum requires waiting for those years to fill in before drawing a growth or decline conclusion.
Nearly all records — 88.4% of the 147 in scope — touch H04R, the IPC subclass covering loudspeakers and audio transducers, since feedback cancellation is fundamentally a transducer-and-signal-path problem. Smaller but meaningful shares fall into acoustics (G10K, 10.2%), diagnosis and surgery (A61B, 6.8%), and speech/audio analysis (G10L, 6.8%). Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these percentages overlap rather than summing to 100%.
The clearest gaps sit in branches adjacent to the dominant H04R cluster: vent-size-adaptive feedback modelling, entrainment-artifact suppression in mixed audio content, delay-constrained filtering for low-latency fitting, and howling detection specific to implant-coupled devices. These appear at low volume relative to the core transducer claims, which makes them candidates for both fresh claim drafting and a closer freedom-to-operate check rather than assumed-open territory.
US20240022864A1, filed by the Institute of Acoustics at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and published in January 2024, claims a deep-learning-based closed-loop suppression method that models the acoustic feedback path and calculates a maximum stable gain from a simulated unit impulse response. It represents a shift from hand-tuned adaptive filters toward learned models for stable-gain estimation. Anyone drafting claims around model-based or learned feedback-path estimation should review its scope directly rather than relying on this summary.
Research Hearing Aid Feedback Cancellation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole hearing aid feedback cancellation 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.