Intense Pulsed Light Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
Intense Pulsed Light Systems Patents: Filing Trends and Competitive Concentration
Top-heavy but not locked down. the leading assignee holds 25 of 226 records, yet the ranked field runs 71 companies deep with a long tail of single or double filers. Annual filings climbed from 9 records in 2017 to a peak of 20 in 2022, then declined through 2024, when the 2021-to-2024 window shows a 40% drop. Treat 2025 and 2026 as still filling in rather than as evidence the field has gone quiet.
- 1GUSTAVSSON NEVADA HOLDING LLC25
- 2STROMA MEDICAL CORP20
- 3CANDELA CORP16
- 4AOBIOME LLC16
- 5PALOMAR MEDICAL TECH LLC13
See the full intense pulsed light systems analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions on intense pulsed light patents
Who are the leading patent holders in intense pulsed light systems?
The ranked field covers 71 companies, with the leading assignee holding 25 of the 226 records in scope. The top five assignees combined hold 39.8% of all records, and the top ten hold 60.6%, so while there is a clear leader, the majority of filings are spread across a long tail of smaller and single-filing entrants. This structure means a freedom-to-operate search needs to go well beyond the top few names to be reliable.
Is filing activity in intense pulsed light devices growing or slowing?
Filings rose from 9 records in 2017 to a peak of 20 in 2022, then the 2021-to-2024 window shows a 40% decline. However, patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset are still incomplete and should not be read as proof the field is cooling further. The safest read is that 2022 was a genuine peak and the field has since normalised to a lower but still active pace.
What technology areas dominate intense pulsed light patent claims?
A61B, covering diagnosis and surgery, appears on 43.4% of the 226 records, and A61N, covering electrotherapy and radiation therapy, appears on 35.8%. These two classes form the technical backbone of most IPL claims, covering pulse delivery and treatment mechanics. Cosmetics-use claims under A61Q sit at just 8.4%, and coating and circuit-related classes trail further, indicating those areas carry less filing density.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Intense Pulsed Light Systems covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.