Holographic Display Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- Filing has cooled since its 2017 peak. 191 filings that year against 117 at the 2022 midpoint and a partial 5 in the latest year — publication lag understates the tail, but the slope is down, not up.
- Holography claims dominate the IPC mix. G03H accounts for 1,634 of 1,701 records, with G02B optics a distant second at 712 — most other adjacent classes (image processing, display driving) sit under 200.
- Collaboration is rare and concentrated. Only 10 co-assignee pairs exist across the whole dataset, and the strongest single pairing (Samsung Electronics with Korea University) still counts just 34 shared families.
Filing growth compares 2021 (146 records) with 2024 (85) — 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 1,701 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families filed against holographic display technology: spatial light modulators, phase holograms, holographic optical elements, and computer-generated hologram methods, drawn from title/abstract search combined with IPC classes G03H1/22, G02B30 and G03H1. It spans publication years 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, with 1,701 total published records forming the assignee ranking.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 and has trended down through the midpoint year and toward the present partial year, though the most recent 12–18 months are always undercounted because publication lags filing. Receiving-office data shows the United States as the largest single jurisdiction, with China, the EPO, WIPO/PCT filings, the UK and South Korea forming the next tier — a spread that points to a technology still filed multi-jurisdictionally rather than concentrated in one home market.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,701-family corpus: the yearly filing curve, and the IPC subclasses that carry the claim density.
A peak year behind us
2017 is the high point at 191 filings; by the midpoint year of 2022 filings had fallen to 117, and the partial latest year shows only 5 — consistent with a technology past its filing peak rather than one still accelerating.
Holography claims dwarf adjacent classes
G03H (holography) covers 1,634 of the 1,701 records — nearly the whole corpus. G02B (optical elements) follows at 712. Everything downstream of the optics — video pictorial communication (H04N, 197), optical modulation (G02F, 175), image data processing (G06T, 101), digital processing (G06F, 86), display driving (G09G, 75) and photographic apparatus (G03B, 74) — sits well below 200, showing that claim activity is still weighted toward the optical generation stage rather than the systems or software layers around it.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,701 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Holographic Display Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about holographic display landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records and a representative filing
Holographic Display Devices — US20090002787A1
Filed by Light Blue Optics, this application covers a holographic projection module for a consumer electronic device: a substantially monochromatic light source paired with a spatial light modulator that phase-modulates the light to form a phase hologram, projected through optics that demagnify the resulting two-dimensional image. The claim structure ties the light source, the SLM's phase-modulation function, and the demagnifying projection optics together as a single module.Abstract text drawn directly from the published filing.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6819469B1 | High-resolution spatial light modulator for 3-dimensional holographic display | 394 |
| 2 | US20040192430A1 | Gaming machine having a 3D display | 258 |
| 3 | US6211976B1 | Holographic projection system | 251 |
| 4 | US6031519A | Holographic direct manipulation interface | 208 |
| 5 | US20100157399A1 | Holographic Display | 134 |
| 6 | US20130022222A1 | Method and device for encoding three-dimensional scenes which include transparent objects in a holographic sy… | 128 |
| 7 | US20140361990A1 | Display with observer tracking | 125 |
| 8 | US20100103246A1 | Holographic Projection System with Optical Wave Tracking and with Means for Correcting the Holographic Recons… | 109 |
| 9 | US20130265622A1 | 2d/3d holographic display system | 107 |
| 10 | US5668648A | Computer-assisted holographic display apparatus | 106 |
Citation counts favour older filings inside any searched corpus; treat this as a signal of influence on later work, not of current commercial relevance.
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 read-throughs from the filing trend, the IPC mix and the citation table.
The filing wave has already crested
With 191 filings in 2017 falling to 117 by the 2022 midpoint and a partial 5 in the most recent year, this is a corpus past its peak rather than one building toward a new filing cycle. New entrants should weigh whether they are filing into a maturing claim space or a genuinely open one.
Holography classes hold nearly the whole corpus
Almost every record sits inside G03H, with G02B optics the only other subclass with substantial depth. Adjacent classes — image processing, display driving, digital processing — are each under 200 records, suggesting the software and systems layers around holographic generation carry comparatively light claim density.
Citation leadership sits with older SLM patents
The most-cited records in this corpus date from the early 2000s and cover foundational spatial light modulator and projection system claims. High citation counts here reflect years of accumulated influence inside the search corpus, not that these claims are still the ones being actively worked around today.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to holographic display landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and how much they collaborate
The assignee ranking spans large electronics manufacturers, specialist holography firms and university technology-transfer offices, but co-filing between them is unusually sparse.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet across the leaders
Samsung Electronics, SeeReal Technologies and Envisics-type specialist filers all show zero filings in the latest tracked year with steep year-over-year drops. That is consistent with the broader 2017-to-present decline in filing volume rather than any single firm exiting the field.
Co-filing is rare and mostly university-linked
Only ten co-assignee pairs exist across 1,701 families. The strongest is Samsung Electronics with Korea University at 34 shared families; the next tier — SeeReal Technologies with individual named inventors — sits at 11-14. Most assignees file solo.
The US leads but the field files broadly
United States filings (575) lead China (301), the EPO (218), WIPO/PCT (145), the UK (126) and South Korea (111). That six-way spread signals a technology where protection is still sought across multiple major markets rather than concentrated in one.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korea) | 0 | -100% |
| SeeReal Technologies | 0 | -100% |
| Envisics Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Dualitas Ltd. | 0 | — |
| BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) | 0 | -100% |
| VividQ Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Korea University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, sourcing, or identifying where to file next.
Check freedom-to-operate against the SLM core
Because G03H and G02B carry the bulk of claim density, any new spatial light modulator or phase hologram design should be checked against the most-cited records in those classes before committing to a design direction.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaTrack the quiet leaders for re-emergence
Several leading assignees show a full year-over-year drop to zero filings. That is either a genuine pause or a filing gap still working through publication lag — worth monitoring rather than assuming exit.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaExplore the under-claimed adjacent branches
Display-driving circuitry and real-time computation for hologram generation sit far below the core optical classes in filing density, which may indicate room to file rather than a lack of commercial interest.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about the holographic display patent landscape
The most-cited record in this corpus is US6819469B1, a high-resolution spatial light modulator patent for 3D holographic display cited 394 times, followed by patents covering gaming displays, holographic projection systems and direct manipulation interfaces. These are largely early-2000s filings, so high citation counts reflect their long-standing influence inside the search corpus rather than current market dominance. Current leading filers, by contrast, include large electronics manufacturers and specialist holography firms whose recent-year activity has slowed sharply.
No. Filings peaked in 2017 at 191 and had fallen to 117 by the 2022 midpoint, with the latest partial year showing only 5. Because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent year or two will always look thinner than it eventually turns out to be, but the multi-year trend from 2017 onward is clearly downward rather than flat or growing.
The dataset's assignee ranking includes large electronics manufacturers alongside specialist holography firms and university technology-transfer offices, several of which appear in co-assignee pairs with academic partners. Several previously active filers, including major Korean and specialist European holography firms, show zero filings in the latest tracked year with steep year-over-year declines, which is consistent with the broader industry-wide slowdown rather than any single company's exit.
The IPC composition shows claim density heavily concentrated in core holography (G03H, 1,634 of 1,701 records) and general optics (G02B, 712), while adjacent classes such as display driving circuits, digital data processing and photographic apparatus integration each sit under 200 records. That gap suggests the systems and software layers around hologram generation — real-time computation, driving circuitry, consumer-device integration — carry comparatively light claim density relative to the optical generation stage itself.
US20090002787A1, assigned to Light Blue Optics, claims a holographic projection module that combines a monochromatic light source, a phase-modulating spatial light modulator, and demagnifying projection optics into a single unit for consumer electronic devices. A new design that uses a different light source type, a different modulation approach (amplitude rather than phase), or projection optics that do not perform the demagnification step described would sit outside this specific claim combination, though a full freedom-to-operate review should check the complete claim set rather than the abstract alone.
The United States receives the most filings in this dataset (575), ahead of China (301), the European Patent Office (218), WIPO/PCT filings (145), the United Kingdom (126) and South Korea (111). This six-way spread indicates that companies in this field are still pursuing protection across multiple major markets rather than concentrating filings in a single home jurisdiction, which is typical for a technology with global consumer-electronics and display-manufacturing relevance.
Research Holographic Display Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole holographic display landscape 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.