Laser Tracker Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 95.0% concentration. The top 5 assignees account for 795 of the 837 records in scope — this field is not a level playing field.
- Filing fell -87% from the 2021 peak. 39 filings in 2021 dropped to 5 in 2024, the last year the dataset treats as complete.
- G01B and G01S dominate, but overlap is thin. 59.1% of records sit in length/dimension measurement and 55.4% in radar/positioning classes — the intersection with imaging and computing classes is comparatively small.
Filing growth compares 2021 (39 records) with 2024 (5) — 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 837 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this patent landscape covers
Laser trackers combine an absolute distance meter with a two-axis angular encoder to locate a retroreflector target in three dimensions, and the patent record in this dataset spans 837 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026. The claims cluster around a small number of hard engineering problems: angular encoder error correction, refractive index compensation for the air path, multi-instrument network measurement, and field calibration procedures that let a tracker be moved between shop floors without re-certifying it from scratch. Patent families, not raw document counts, are the fairer unit here because a single invention can generate several continuations and multiple national filings.
The receiving-office spread points to where enforcement and freedom-to-operate actually matter: the United States carries the largest share of filings, followed by the United Kingdom, the WIPO PCT route, and the European Patent Office, with smaller but active dockets in Germany and Austria. That spread is a reasonable proxy for where litigation risk and licensing leverage concentrate, though it says nothing about which claims will hold up when tested.
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 837 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing activity has cooled since 2021
Filings rose to a peak of 39 in 2021, then fell to 5 by 2024 — an -87% drop over that three-year span, the last stretch the dataset treats as complete. Because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and should not be read as confirmation the field is shrinking further.
Measurement and positioning classes dominate, imaging and compute trail
G01B (length and dimension measurement, 59.1% of records) and G01S (radar, sonar and positioning, 55.4%) anchor the field, with G01C (distance, navigation and gyroscopes, 35.0%) close behind. Pictorial communication, digital data processing, image processing and specific-application computing each sit in the 9–12% range — real but secondary, which is where software-defined measurement workflows are still being claimed rather than settled.
Shares are the percentage of the 837 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Laser Trackers and Large-Scale Metrology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about laser trackers and large-scale metrology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe documents that shape freedom-to-operate
Method for using a handheld appliance to select, lock onto, and track a retroreflector with a laser tracker
A method for locking onto and tracking a selected retroreflector target with a laser tracker: the operator actuates a handheld appliance that sends a wireless signal, the tracker repetitively reflects a cone of light off candidate retroreflector targets and captures an array image, determines which target meets the retroreflector selection criterion, checks whether the position detector is receiving the reflected beam, and exits the loop once that condition is met.Filed by FARO Technologies — the single most concentrated assignee in this dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US7800758B1 | Laser-based coordinate measuring device and laser-based method for measuring coordinates | 417 |
| 2 | US7352446B2 | Absolute distance meter that measures a moving retroreflector | 260 |
| 3 | US20160327383A1 | Three-dimensional measuring device removably coupled to robotic arm on motorized mobile platform | 256 |
| 4 | US20100128259A1 | Device and method for measuring six degrees of freedom | 243 |
| 5 | WO2003062744A1 | Laser-based coordinate measuring device and laser-based method for measuring coordinates | 232 |
| 6 | US20140028805A1 | System and method of acquiring three-dimensional coordinates using multiple coordinate measurment devices | 228 |
| 7 | US20130293684A1 | Three-dimensional coordinate scanner and method of operation | 200 |
| 8 | US7804602B2 | Apparatus and method for relocating an articulating-arm coordinate measuring machine | 190 |
| 9 | US7327446B2 | Self-compensating laser tracker | 176 |
| 10 | US20120262550A1 | Six degree-of-freedom laser tracker that cooperates with a remote structured-light scanner | 173 |
Citation counts favour older documents that have had more years to accumulate references — read them as a signal of influence on later filings, 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 data means for a filing decision
Three findings that change where a legal or R&D team should spend diligence time.
One assignee sets the terms of this field
The leading assignee alone accounts for 712 of the 837 records in scope, with the remaining top-5 share bringing the combined total to 795 records, or 95.0% of everything published. Any new entrant is effectively negotiating claim space against one incumbent's portfolio, not a diffuse market.
The peak has passed, but the picture past 2024 is incomplete
Filings dropped from 39 in the 2021 peak year to 5 in 2024. That is a real slowdown over a three-year window, but because publication lags filing by around 18 months, 2025–2026 counts are not yet settled and should not be read as a continuation of the decline.
Core measurement classes dominate; software classes are thinner
Length/dimension measurement and radar-positioning classes each cover more than half of all records, while image processing, digital data processing and specific-application computing sit at 8-12%. That gap suggests the optical and mechanical measurement problem is heavily claimed while the data-processing layer around it is comparatively open.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to laser trackers and large-scale metrology, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| FARO Technologies, Inc. | BRID ROBERT E | 27 |
| FARO Technologies, Inc. | STEFFEY KENNETH | 10 |
| FARO Technologies, Inc. | STEFFENSEN NILS P | 6 |
| FARO Technologies, Inc. | BROWN LAWRENCE B | 6 |
| FARO Technologies, Inc. | CRAMER PETER G | 5 |
| BRID ROBERT E | STEFFEY KENNETH | 5 |
| BRID ROBERT E | STEFFENSEN NILS P | 5 |
| BRID ROBERT E | MERTZ JACOB J | 5 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in this dataset, and the strongest pairing links the leading corporate assignee to a small number of named individual inventors — a pattern consistent with an in-house engineering team rather than cross-company joint development.
Who holds the claims, and what they have not claimed
The ranked leaders make up a short list; everyone else in the 64-company ranking files rarely and has gone quiet in the most recent year tracked.
One incumbent dominates the docket
The top assignee's record count dwarfs every other entrant in the ranking, and the fifth-place assignee holds only 10 records by comparison. Diligence on this field starts and mostly ends with checking that one portfolio.
A long tail of low-volume filers
Beyond the top 10, which together hold 833 of 837 records (99.5%), the remaining ranked assignees each hold only a handful of filings. This is a field where a handful of firms, plus named individual inventors, explain almost the entire output.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet across the board
Every major assignee tracked for recent-year momentum shows zero filings in the latest year, which is consistent with the 18-month publication lag rather than a sign the leaders have stopped inventing. It does mean the most recent published year cannot be used to judge who is currently most active.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| FARO Technologies, Inc. | 0 | — |
| BRID ROBERT E | 0 | — |
| Perceptron, Inc. | 0 | — |
| The Boeing Company | 0 | — |
| FARO LASER TRACKERS LLC | 0 | — |
| Hexagon Innovation Hub GmbH | 0 | — |
| Leica Geosystems AG | 0 | -100% |
| STEFFEY KENNETH | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, acquisition targeting, or a first filing.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the leading portfolio
With one assignee holding 712 of 837 records, any product decision in this space should start with a claim-by-claim review of that portfolio before spending time on the long tail.
Explore in EurekaStress-test the under-claimed sub-areas
Refractive index compensation, network synchronisation and automated calibration workflows show thinner IPC coverage than the core measurement classes — worth a closer novelty search before assuming the space is open.
Explore in EurekaTreat 2025-2026 filing counts as provisional
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, do not conclude the field has gone cold from the most recent two years of data alone; revisit the trend once those years mature.
Explore in EurekaCommon questions about laser tracker patents
One assignee dominates this dataset, holding 712 of the 837 records in scope — a level of concentration rarely seen even in mature metrology fields. The next four assignees combined bring the top-5 share to 795 records, or 95.0% of everything published. Anyone assessing competitive risk in laser tracker technology should treat that single portfolio as the primary reference point, since the remaining 59 ranked assignees each hold comparatively small numbers of filings.
Filings peaked in 2021 at 39 for the year, then fell to 5 by 2024, an -87% drop over that three-year span. That is a genuine slowdown through the last complete filing year in the dataset. However, publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as proof the decline is continuing.
The bulk of records sit in G01B (length and dimension measurement, 59.1% of the 837 records) and G01S (radar, sonar and positioning, 55.4%), with G01C (distance, navigation and gyroscopes) covering 35.0%. Supporting classes around imaging, digital data processing and specific-application computing each cover roughly 8-12% of records, pointing to a field where the core optical and mechanical measurement problem is heavily claimed but the surrounding data-processing layer is thinner. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares add up to more than 100%.
The clearest gaps sit where core measurement classes (G01B, G01S) have dense coverage but the adjacent computing and imaging classes (G06F, G06T, G16Z) remain comparatively thin, at roughly 9-12% of records each. Practically, that points to refractive index compensation algorithms, multi-tracker network synchronisation, automated field calibration workflows and retroreflector auto-selection logic as areas with room for a first claim. A proper novelty search against the leading assignee's portfolio is still the necessary first step before filing in any of these areas.
The United States carries the largest share of filings in this dataset at 425, followed by the United Kingdom at 152 and the WIPO PCT route at 111. Europe (EPO), Germany and Austria carry smaller but active dockets. This spread is a reasonable indicator of where enforcement and licensing activity concentrate, though it does not by itself indicate where the underlying inventions were developed.
Research Laser Trackers and Large-Scale Metrology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole laser trackers and large-scale metrology 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.