LiDAR System Lens and Optics Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- Filings have cooled since the 2019 peak. 229 records that year against 60 in 2017 and a midpoint of 131 in 2022 — the growth phase already happened.
- One document dominates the citation graph. US20200284883A1 has been cited 1,006 times, more than three times the next most-cited record.
- Recent-year momentum is negative across the named leaders. Every tracked assignee with prior activity shows flat or falling filings in the latest year, several down 100% YoY.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families at the intersection of LiDAR systems and their optical subsystems — receiver optics, scanning optics, beam-shaping lenses and optical assemblies — filtered to documents whose title, abstract or claims explicitly reference these components alongside core LiDAR classification codes. It spans filings from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, covering 1,317 published records across major receiving offices including the United States, EPO, WIPO/PCT, Israel, Canada and Germany.
Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the last one to two years in any trend chart will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. Treat the most recent data points as provisional floors, not final counts.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same corpus: how filing volume moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A filing wave that has already crested
Annual filings rose from 60 in 2017 to a peak of 229 in 2019, then eased to 131 by the 2022 midpoint and down to 7 in the most recent (partial) year. Read the tail end cautiously given publication lag, but the shape from 2019 onward is unambiguously a decline, not a plateau.
Optics classifications sit well behind the core radar/positioning code
Nearly every record carries a G01S (radar, sonar & positioning) code, as the search construction requires, but only 355 of 1,317 also carry a G02B optical-elements code — meaning a majority of the corpus treats optics as a supporting claim element rather than the primary inventive contribution. Laser sources (H01S), semiconductor integration (H01L) and modulation (G02F) each appear in a few dozen records, marking smaller but distinct adjacent claim clusters.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,317 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on LiDAR System Lens and Optics with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about lidar system lens and optics and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe documents shaping this space
Optical assembly for a lidar system, lidar system and working apparatus (Robert Bosch GmbH, 2020)
The filing describes an optical assembly combining receiver and transmitter optics along partially coaxial beam paths, a line light source aligned to the field of view, and a deflection unit that splits the beam paths from a shared coaxial region into separate biaxial paths using a hole mirror with an elongated hole shaped to match the line source's orientation.Abstract condensed from the original filing text.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20200284883A1 | Component for a lidar sensor system, lidar sensor system, lidar sensor device, method for a lidar sensor syst… | 1,006 |
| 2 | US5006721A | Lidar scanning system | 377 |
| 3 | US20150185313A1 | High speed 360 degree scanning lidar head | 226 |
| 4 | US20190271767A1 | Dynamically Allocating Detection Elements to Pixels in LIDAR Systems | 199 |
| 5 | US20190011567A1 | Light ranging device with MEMS scanned emitter array and synchronized electronically scanned sensor array | 196 |
| 6 | US20170350983A1 | Multiple Pixel Scanning LIDAR | 164 |
| 7 | US5270780A | Dual detector lidar system and method | 143 |
| 8 | US9041915B2 | Systems and methods of scene and action capture using imaging system incorporating 3D LIDAR | 124 |
| 9 | US10571567B2 | Low profile lidar scanner with polygon mirror | 122 |
| 10 | US10393877B2 | Multiple pixel scanning LIDAR | 116 |
Ranked by citation count within this searched corpus; older filings accumulate citations simply by having been public longer, so treat this as a map of influence rather than a ranking of current 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 filing strategy
Four patterns stand out once the raw counts are put in context.
The land grab already happened
Filing volume peaked in 2019 and has declined through the most recent years tracked. A new entrant today is filing into a claim space that was most actively contested five to seven years ago, not one still forming.
One filing anchors the prior-art landscape
US20200284883A1 is cited nearly three times more than the second most-cited record. Any freedom-to-operate review in this space should start there rather than with a broad keyword sweep.
Optics claims are often secondary, not primary
Only about a quarter of records carry an explicit optical-elements classification alongside the core radar/positioning code, suggesting most LiDAR optics innovation is claimed as part of a system patent rather than as a standalone optical invention.
Even the named leaders are pulling back
Every assignee with visible recent-year activity in this dataset shows declining or zero filings in the latest year, including entities with double-digit historical output. This is consistent with a maturing rather than an emerging claim space.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to lidar system lens and optics, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where the gaps sit
Co-filing pairs and momentum data point to a small set of firms that built the densest positions early, several of which have since slowed filing activity sharply.
Sensing-photonics and academic partnerships run deep
The strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset links a sensing-photonics specialist with a university engineering department, with 26 shared families — the densest collaborative filing pattern in the corpus.
US filing dominates, but international coverage is thinner
More than half of the tracked receiving-office activity sits in the United States, with EPO and PCT trailing well behind and Israel, Canada and Germany each in the low tens. Firms betting on broad international enforcement should check whether their target markets are even covered.
Recent activity has gone quiet across the board
Assignees that were filing steadily in prior years, including specialists in solid-state and MEMS-based scanning, show zero filings in the most recent tracked year. That is either consolidation, a pivot to trade-secret protection, or simply publication lag masking work still in the pipeline.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Innoviz Technologies Ltd. | 2 | -67% |
| Waymo LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Blackmore Sensors and Analytics, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Aurora Operations, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Sense Photonics, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Opsys Tech Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Ouster, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Velodyne Lidar, Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, whitespace filing, or competitive monitoring.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the top-cited cluster
Start with US20200284883A1 and the other most-cited records rather than a fresh keyword search — they anchor the prior art that later filings had to design around.
Explore citation mapping in EurekaTest claim language in the under-claimed branches
Hole-mirror deflection geometry and line-source beam shaping show thinner density than core receiver-optics claims, making them worth a closer novelty check before assuming the space is closed.
Draft and stress-test claims in EurekaMonitor assignees showing renewed activity
Several previously active filers dropped to zero in the latest year; a filing pushed after this data cut-off would be an early signal worth tracking.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaCommon questions about LiDAR optics patents
Based on citation counts within this corpus, US20200284883A1 is by far the most-cited record, referenced 1,006 times, well ahead of the next most-cited filing at 377 citations. High citation counts indicate a document that later filings frequently cite as prior art, which usually means its claims touch a widely used technical approach. It is a reasonable starting point for any freedom-to-operate review, though citation count alone does not confirm the patent is still enforceable or unchallenged.
No, filing activity peaked in 2019 at 229 records and has declined since, dropping to a midpoint of 131 in 2022 and down to 7 in the most recent tracked year. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the final one or two years understate true activity, but the overall trend from 2019 onward is a clear decline rather than continued growth. This suggests the core claim territory in receiver and scanning optics was most actively contested several years ago.
Receiver optics claims typically cover how returning light is collected, filtered and directed onto a detector array, while scanning optics claims cover how the outgoing beam is steered across a field of view, often using mirrors, MEMS elements or rotating assemblies. Many patents in this dataset combine both in a single optical assembly claim, as seen in the representative Bosch filing, which integrates receiver and transmitter beam paths through a shared deflection unit. Separating the two claim types matters when assessing whether a new design infringes one function but not the other.
The dataset shows concentration among a handful of specialist LiDAR and photonics firms along with automotive suppliers, several of which co-file with university research groups or complementary technology partners. However, recent-year momentum data shows every one of these previously active assignees with flat or declining filing counts, several down sharply year over year. Anyone tracking competitive activity should look at momentum alongside historical volume, since a large historical portfolio does not necessarily mean continued active filing.
The technology composition data shows that only a minority of records carry an explicit optical-elements classification (G02B) alongside the dominant radar and positioning code, meaning most optics innovation is claimed as part of a broader system patent rather than as a standalone optical invention. Specific sub-areas such as hole-mirror deflection geometry, line-source beam shaping for coaxial paths, and MEMS-synchronized receiver arrays show thinner claim density than the core receiver-optics cluster. These are reasonable areas to probe for novelty before assuming the space is fully occupied.
Research LiDAR System Lens and Optics in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole lidar system lens and optics 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.