Hybrid PET/MR & PET/CT Patents: Leader, Long Tail 2026
- One assignee dominates the ranked field: the leader holds 65 records against a fifth-place count of 4 and a tenth-place count of 2, across 33 ranked companies.
- Filing has not grown in a straight line: the peak year so far is 2019 at 7 records, with the most recent complete years running lower — read the latest year as understated given an 18-month publication lag.
- Claims cluster on image processing, not hardware: G06T image data processing (37.5% of 104 records) and G01T radiation measurement (34.6%) outweigh G01R magnetic measurement (23.1%), pointing to software-side attenuation correction as the busiest claim space.
What this landscape covers
Hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT systems combine a positron-emission tomography detector ring with a second morphological modality — CT or MR — inside one gantry, sharing a patient bore and a workflow. The patenting activity in this dataset is not primarily about the detector hardware; it concentrates on the software and calibration problem that hybrid imaging creates: how to derive a usable attenuation map when the morphological scan is truncated, how to register the two datasets in time and space, and how to keep a PET detector electronics chain working inside an MR magnet’s field. The search scope pulls records that name attenuation maps, magnetic compatibility, co-registration, workflow integration, installation footprint or cost-per-scan alongside a hybrid PET scanner term.
104 published records sit in scope, spanning filings from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off. Records are drawn mainly from the United States, European and PCT receiving offices, with a smaller but notable share filed in India and Germany — consistent with a field where the largest medical-imaging OEMs file broadly but a handful of academic and specialist entrants file narrowly.
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 104-record dataset: how filing has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filing peaked so far in 2019 at 7 records and has not exceeded that level since. With fewer than four complete years remaining once the roughly 18-month publication lag is accounted for, a growth rate cannot be stated reliably from this trend alone — treat the most recent bars as a floor, not a ceiling.
IPC subclass composition
A61B (diagnosis & surgery, 38.5% of 104 records) and G06T (image data processing, 37.5%) are the two largest classes, ahead of G01T (nuclear & X-radiation measurement, 34.6%) and G01R (electric & magnetic measurement, 23.1%). Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add to more than 100% — the composition says where claim density sits, not how many distinct inventions exist.
Shares are the percentage of the 104 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT Systems with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about hybrid pet/mr and pet/ct systems and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this field
Completion of truncated attenuation maps using maximum likelihood estimation of attenuation and activity (MLAA)
The method generates a best estimate of an image attenuation map from a truncated attenuation map and PET emissions data, for the case where a morphological modality such as CT or MR is integrated with PET. PET emissions data is recorded and processed, the morphological modality records image data used to determine an attenuation map, and because that attenuation map is truncated for CT/MR-PET hybrids, pixels needing attenuation data are identified and coefficients are estimated jointly with activity.Filed by Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., issued 2013-12-31 — a foundational reference for MLAA-style attenuation correction cited repeatedly by later filers in this dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20080156993A1 | Quantum photodetectors, imaging apparatus and systems, and related methods | 117 |
| 2 | US7800070B2 | Quantum photodetectors, imaging apparatus and systems, and related methods | 43 |
| 3 | US20110103669A1 | Completion of Truncated Attenuation Maps Using MLAA | 41 |
| 4 | US20180025512A1 | System and method for segmenting medical image | 34 |
| 5 | US20160174919A1 | System and method for joint estimation of attenuation and activity information | 33 |
| 6 | US20130237818A1 | Pet-CT system with single detector | 29 |
| 7 | US20170164911A1 | Multi-modality imaging system and method | 27 |
| 8 | US20140056500A1 | Generating Attenuation Correction Maps for Combined Modality Imaging Studies and Improving Generated Attenuat… | 26 |
| 9 | US9466133B2 | Dose-optimized protocol for AC and localization on hybrid scanners | 25 |
| 10 | WO2012066469A1 | Pet-CT system with single detector | 19 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings — treat this list as a signal of influence on later filers, not a ranking of current commercial 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 data indicates
Four read-throughs from the filing trend, technology composition and citation pattern above.
One filer dominates a long tail
The leader's 65 records dwarf the fifth-place count of 4 and tenth-place count of 2 across the 33 ranked companies. That gap is typical of a field anchored by one large OEM's platform patents, with the remaining assignees filing narrowly around specific correction or workflow problems rather than competing for the same broad claims.
Software correction outweighs hardware claims
A61B and G06T together cover more of the record set than G01R (magnetic measurement, 23.1%), suggesting the busier claim space is attenuation-map completion and image processing rather than the physical problem of running PET electronics inside a magnet.
No sustained filing acceleration
Filing has not exceeded its 2019 peak of 7 records in any later year in this dataset. Combined with the understatement built into the most recent year from publication lag, this points to a mature, steady-state filing pattern rather than an emerging rush.
Early quantum-photodetector filings still anchor citations
The two most-cited records in scope both concern quantum photodetector imaging apparatus, cited 117 and 43 times respectively — well ahead of the attenuation-map-specific filings below them. That is a citation-count artefact of age as much as of importance; newer attenuation and segmentation filings are still accumulating citations.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to hybrid pet/mr and pet/ct systems, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignees and where the claim gates sit
The ranked field runs 33 companies deep, but the shape is lopsided: one large diagnostic-imaging OEM holds the majority position, and co-assignee filing pairs show internal group structure rather than cross-company collaboration.
Platform-scale filer sets the baseline
The top-ranked assignee's 65 records give it the broadest coverage across attenuation-correction, co-registration and workflow-integration claims. Any new filer working on core MLAA-style completion methods should expect prior art from this assignee first.
Narrow, specific filers past the leader
From fifth place downward, counts drop to single digits quickly — 4 records at fifth, 2 at tenth. These assignees tend to hold one or two filings tied to a specific correction method or hardware configuration rather than a broad portfolio.
Group and inventor pairs, not cross-company deals
The strongest co-assignee pair links a company to its own IP-holding affiliate, and the next-strongest pairs are individual inventor pairings rather than joint ventures. This dataset shows internal corporate structure more than industry collaboration.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | — |
| Philips IntProp & Standards GmbH | 0 | — |
| Shanghai United Imaging Healthcare Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. | 0 | — |
| QUANTUM MOLECULAR TECH | 0 | — |
| Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | 0 | — |
| SOWARDS EMMERD DAVID | 0 | — |
| SILVA ANGELA | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
This landscape identifies where claim density sits and who holds it. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going deeper on specific claim language.
Check freedom-to-operate on attenuation-map methods
With A61B and G06T carrying the densest claim coverage, a new attenuation-correction filing should be checked against the leader's portfolio and the MLAA-family reference before drafting.
Explore this in Eureka →Map the under-claimed branches
Healthcare informatics integration and installation-footprint claims sit far below the core correction methods in filing volume — worth a deeper novelty search before assuming the space is occupied.
Run a white-space search in Eureka →Common questions on hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT patents
One assignee leads the ranked field with 65 records, far ahead of the fifth-ranked company's 4 records and the tenth-ranked company's 2. The ranking covers 33 companies total drawn from 104 records in scope, so the field has one dominant filer and a long tail of narrower, specific filers. Anyone assessing freedom-to-operate on core attenuation-correction or co-registration methods should check this leader's portfolio first, since its filing volume covers most of the foundational correction techniques in this dataset.
In PET imaging, photon attenuation as radiation passes through tissue must be corrected for accurate reconstruction, and that correction relies on an attenuation map normally derived from a CT or MR scan. In hybrid systems, the morphological scan is often truncated relative to the PET field of view, leaving gaps in the map — a problem that a large share of the filings in this dataset (grouped under image data processing and radiation measurement IPC classes) exist specifically to solve. It matters for patent strategy because it is the single busiest claim area in the field, meaning new filings here face the densest prior art.
The filing trend in this dataset peaked at 7 records in 2019 and has not exceeded that level in any subsequent year through the 2026 data cut-off. That does not necessarily mean interest is declining — publication typically lags actual filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any trend chart will understate true filing activity. Read the trend as a steady, mature filing pattern rather than either growth or decline until more recent years fully publish.
US8620053B2, assigned to Siemens Medical Solutions USA, covers a maximum-likelihood method (MLAA) for completing a truncated attenuation map using PET emissions data jointly with the morphological scan data, specifically for CT or MR systems integrated with PET. It is one of the most-cited records in this dataset, meaning later filers in the field have repeatedly had to design around or build on its specific joint-estimation approach. A team implementing attenuation completion for a hybrid scanner should review this claim scope closely, particularly if the approach also jointly estimates activity and attenuation coefficients rather than treating them separately.
The IPC composition shows healthcare informatics integration (G16H, 1.9% of 104 records), body-fluid device compatibility (A61M, 1.0%) and velocity/motion correction (G01P, 1.0%) are all thinly claimed relative to the dominant image-processing and radiation-measurement classes. Installation-footprint and cost-per-scan angles named in the search scope also show comparatively few dedicated filings. These are reasonable areas to search more deeply before assuming they are occupied, though thin coverage in a ranking is not the same as confirmed absence of prior art.
Research Hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT Systems in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole hybrid pet/mr and pet/ct systems 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.