Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/laser-integration-and-optical-sources-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Silicon Photonics · Patent LandscapeLaser Integration and Optical Sources Patents
- 27.7% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees hold 107 of 386 records in scope, but the remaining filers form a long tail of single- and double-digit filers.
- Filing is still rising, not cooling. 2021 to 2024 filings grew 20%, and 2024 is the most recent year the trend can be read as complete — later years are still filling in as publications lag filing.
- H01S dominates, everything else is secondary. Lasers and stimulated emission (H01S) touch 77.2% of the 386 records; no other class reaches one-fifth of the field.
386
Published Records
28%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+20%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (5 records) with 2024 (6) — 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 386 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 386 patent records published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine laser integration techniques — heterogeneous laser attach, external cavity designs, III-V bonding — with the practical constraints that decide whether a laser source survives outside the lab: wavelength stability, thermal management, output power budget, and long-term reliability. The search deliberately pairs an integration route with an operating constraint, so the records here are weighted toward designs that had to answer both questions at once.
Coverage runs through a data cut-off of 2026-07-31, with the United States, the European Patent Office and WIPO's PCT route accounting for the bulk of filing activity. Publication lags actual filing by roughly 18 months, so any apparent softening in the final one or two years reflects that lag rather than a real drop in activity.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Integration and Optical Sources covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 386 records: how filing activity moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose from 5 in 2017 to a peak of 11 in 2019, and the 2021-to-2024 window shows a further 20% increase. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because of publication lag and should not be read as a decline.
IPC subclass composition
H01S (lasers and stimulated emission) appears in 77.2% of the 386 records, with G02B (optical elements and systems) a distant second at 18.4%. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100% and should be read individually against the 386-record total, not against each other as a pie.
Shares are the percentage of the 386 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Integration and Optical Sources covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Laser Integration and Optical Sources with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about laser integration and optical sources and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Most-cited records and a representative filing
Representative Filing
US7548567B2 — Analog transmitter using an external cavity laser (ECL)
EMCORE CORPORATION
Assigned to Emcore Corporation and published 2009-06-16, this filing uses an external cavity laser's own operating characteristics to push a 'distortion dip' — a region of reduced second- and third-order distortion and raised stimulated Brillouin scattering threshold — into stable operating temperature ranges away from mode hops, using optical, electronic, thermal or mechanical means.Representative of the thermal-stability-plus-distortion-control cluster inside this dataset.
Highest-cited records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20060239605A1 | Optical coupling to IC chip | 286 |
| 2 | US6205159B1 | Discrete wavelength liquid crystal tuned external cavity diode laser | 196 |
| 3 | US6396864B1 | Thermally conductive coatings for light emitting devices | 182 |
| 4 | US20060002443A1 | Multimode external cavity semiconductor lasers | 154 |
| 5 | US6115401A | External cavity semiconductor laser with monolithic prism assembly | 142 |
| 6 | US7298941B2 | Optical coupling to IC chip | 141 |
| 7 | US11320588B1 | Super system on chip | 134 |
| 8 | US7565084B1 | Robustly stabilizing laser systems | 117 |
| 9 | US20010036206A1 | Tunable laser with microactuator | 97 |
| 10 | US20100303111A1 | Pair of optically locked semiconductor narrow linewidth external cavity lasers with frequency offset tuning | 88 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to be cited; treat this table as a map of influential prior art, not of current filing activity.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Integration and Optical Sources covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns worth acting on before drafting into this space.
Concentration
27.7% / 386
top 5 share of records
The top of the field is thin, not thick
The five leading assignees hold 107 of the 386 records in scope. That is meaningful concentration for a leader at 51 records, but it still leaves nearly three-quarters of the field to a long tail of smaller filers, which is unusual density for an occupied claim space.
Ranking covers 100 assignees, not a top-50 or top-100 cut.
Momentum
+20%, 2021→2024
filing growth, complete years only
Growth is real but should be read on complete years only
The 2021-to-2024 window shows a 20% increase in filings, and 2019 remains the single peak year at 11. Years after 2024 are still filling in because publications lag filing by roughly 18 months, so treat any apparent drop in 2025 or 2026 as incomplete data, not a slowdown.
Peak year so far: 2019 at 11 filings.
Composition
77.2% H01S
share of the 386 records
Claim space is crowded in one subclass and thin elsewhere
H01S covers more than three-quarters of records, while G02B, H04B, G02F, G01J and G01N each sit well under one-fifth. That imbalance means the laser device itself is heavily claimed, but the surrounding measurement, control and navigation-adjacent classes carry comparatively light coverage.
Class shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple IPC codes.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to laser integration and optical sources, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Integration and Optical Sources covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where the field is still open
The ranked leaders sit alongside a long tail, and several sub-areas inside the search scope carry comparatively few claims.
Leader
51 records
leading assignee
One filer well ahead, then a sharp drop
The leading assignee holds 51 of the 386 records, more than four times the fifth-place filer's 11. That gap suggests a sustained internal programme rather than opportunistic filing, and it is worth checking freedom-to-operate against this filer specifically before drafting into core laser-integration claims.
Fifth place: 11 records; tenth place: 8 records.
Mid-field
38.9% / 386
top 10 combined share
The next five add less than the first five
The top 10 combined hold 150 records, 38.9% of the 386 in scope — an incremental gain of just over 11 points once places six through ten are added to the top five's 27.7%. That flattening past the leader is typical of a field where the second tier is filing steadily but not aggressively.
Top 5: 27.7% of all 386 records; Top 10: 38.9%.
Recent activity
0 in latest year
several leading assignees
Even the largest filers show a quiet latest year
Several of the highest-ranked assignees show zero filings in the most recent year tracked. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this is expected and should not be read as those programmes winding down; recheck this figure once later years finish publishing.
Momentum figures are drawn from published records only.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Intel Corporation | 0 | — |
| PGT PHOTONICS SPA | 0 | — |
| Iolon, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Pirelli & C. S.p.A. | 0 | — |
| NEW FOCUS INC | 0 | — |
| Redshift Systems Corporation | 0 | — |
| The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University | 0 | — |
| BWT Property, Inc. | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Integration and Optical Sources covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this
The dataset points to specific next checks rather than a general read of the field.
Map freedom-to-operate against the leader
With one assignee holding 51 of 386 records and a sharp drop to the fifth-place filer at 11, any new filing in core laser-integration claims should be checked against that leader's portfolio first.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaDraft into the under-claimed overlaps
The G01C, G01S, G01N and G01J overlaps each sit under 6% of the 386 records, well below the H01S core, suggesting claim space still open around measurement, navigation and positioning integration.
Explore white space in EurekaRe-run the trend once 2025–2026 finish publishing
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the apparent dip in the final years is an artefact of incomplete data, not a real slowdown; revisit the trend chart in a future cut for a cleaner read.
Track filing trends in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Integration and Optical Sources covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on laser integration patents
The ranking covers 100 assignees drawn from 386 records, with one leader holding 51 records and a sharp drop to 11 records at fifth place. The top five assignees combined hold 27.7% of all 386 records, and the top ten hold 38.9%, which means over 60% of filings sit outside the ranked leaders in a long tail of smaller players. Before filing new claims in this space, it is worth checking the leader's portfolio specifically, since its share is disproportionately large relative to everyone else in the ranking.
Filings grew 20% from 2021 to 2024, and 2024 is the most recent year that can be treated as a complete data point. The peak year so far is 2019, with 11 filings. Any apparent decline in 2025 or 2026 is an artefact of the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, not evidence that activity is cooling, so those final years should be re-checked once later publications land.
Lasers and stimulated emission (IPC class H01S) appear in 77.2% of the 386 records, making it by far the dominant classification in this dataset. Optical elements and systems (G02B) is a distant second at 18.4%, with transmission, optical control, radiation measurement, material analysis, navigation and positioning classes each under 7%. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, these percentages should be read against the full 386-record total individually, not compared as slices of one pie.
US7548567B2, assigned to Emcore Corporation and published in 2009, covers methods of shifting an external cavity laser's 'distortion dip' — a region of reduced signal distortion and higher tolerance for stimulated Brillouin scattering — into stable operating temperature ranges away from mode hops, using optical, electronic, thermal or mechanical adjustment. It is representative of a cluster of filings in this dataset that tie thermal management directly to distortion performance rather than treating them as separate design problems. Anyone designing an ECL-based analog transmitter with temperature-dependent distortion control should review this filing's specific claim language before finalizing a thermal management approach.
The clearest gaps sit in the overlaps between core laser integration and adjacent applications: navigation and gyroscope integration (G01C), radar and positioning (G01S), and material analysis tie-ins (G01N) each cover well under 6% of the 386 records, compared with H01S's 77.2%. Micro transfer printing for laser attach and output power budget allocation across cavity stages also appear in the search scope without dominating any single assignee's portfolio. These lighter-claimed branches are reasonable starting points for a first claim that avoids the densest prior art around the core H01S laser device claims.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Laser Integration and Optical Sources covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Laser Integration and Optical Sources in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole laser integration and optical sources 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.