LiDAR System Photodetector Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- Filings have declined since 2018. The peak year was 2018 at 345 records; by the midpoint of 2022 filings had fallen to 210, and the trend has not recovered since.
- Claim activity concentrates outside pure detector IPC classes. G01S (radar, sonar & positioning) carries 2,118 of 2,154 records, while semiconductor-device claims under H01L sit far behind at 212 — most of the drafting effort is at the system level, not the die level.
- Momentum is falling even among the most active filers. The most recent full year shows double-digit percentage declines across the tracked assignees, with several dropping to zero filings year-on-year.
Filing growth compares 2021 (233 records) with 2024 (79) — 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 2,154 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families at the intersection of LiDAR ranging systems and photodetector hardware — single-photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), avalanche photodiodes, SPAD arrays and receiver-detector architectures — filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026. The search combines title/abstract terms for LiDAR and laser scanning with title/abstract/claim terms for the detector technologies themselves, restricted to IPC classes covering optical ranging (G01S7/486, G01S17/10) and photodiode semiconductor structure (H01L31/107).
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one or two years in any trend line will understate actual filing activity; they should be read as provisional rather than as evidence of a real drop-off.
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
The filing curve and the IPC breakdown together show a field that grew quickly, peaked, and has since been filing at a lower steady rate concentrated in system-level ranging claims rather than detector semiconductor structure.
A 2018 peak followed by a plateau
Filings rose to 253 in 2017 and peaked at 345 in 2018. By the 2022 midpoint the annual count had fallen to 210, and the curve continues downward toward 5 in the most recent (partial) year — consistent with a maturing filing base rather than a collapsing one, once the publication lag is accounted for.
System-level claims dominate over device-level claims
G01S (radar, sonar and positioning) accounts for 2,118 of 2,154 records — nearly the entire corpus — while G02B (optical elements), H01L (semiconductor devices) and G01C (distance/navigation) trail well behind at 250, 212 and 170 respectively. This indicates that most drafting effort protects ranging-system architecture and integration rather than the underlying photodiode or SPAD semiconductor structure itself, leaving device-level claim space comparatively open.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,154 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on LiDAR System Photodetector with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about lidar system photodetector and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative recent filing
US20250116780A1 — Image sensing device and lidar device
Filed by Sogang University Research Foundation and published 2025-04-10, this application describes a SPAD-array image sensing device with row and column signal transmission lines, a bias circuit unit generating row and column bias signals from photon signals, and a logic circuit unit that identifies pixel-level events from the combined row/column bias signals.Abstract condensed from the published filing.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20070181810A1 | Vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) array laser scanner | 428 |
| 2 | US20170153319A1 | Lidar system with distributed laser and multiple sensor heads | 413 |
| 3 | US20180113200A1 | Variable flux allocation within a lidar FOV to improve detection in a region | 379 |
| 4 | US20160161600A1 | Optical phased array lidar system and method of using same | 365 |
| 5 | US7544945B2 | Vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) array laser scanner | 320 |
| 6 | US20170269215A1 | Integrated Illumination And Detection For LIDAR Based 3-D Imaging | 274 |
| 7 | US20170155225A1 | Pulsed laser for lidar system | 249 |
| 8 | US20180188355A1 | 2D SCANNING HIGH PRECISION LiDAR USING COMBINATION OF ROTATING CONCAVE MIRROR AND BEAM STEERING DEVICES | 242 |
| 9 | US20170176579A1 | Light detection and ranging sensor | 237 |
| 10 | US20180259645A1 | Accurate photo detector measurements for lidar | 228 |
Citation counts favour older, earlier-filed records within any searched corpus; treat them as a signal of historical influence on the field rather than a ranking of current technical 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 numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are read against the IPC composition and receiving-office split.
Growth has flattened, not accelerated
The 2018 peak of 345 filings was not sustained; by 2022 the annual count had nearly halved to 210. Combined with the publication lag, this points to a technology area that expanded rapidly through the first LiDAR commercialisation wave and has since settled into a lower, steadier filing rate.
Ranging-system claims crowd out device claims
Almost the entire corpus sits in G01S (radar, sonar and positioning), while H01L (semiconductor devices) covers only 212 records. Device-level photodiode and SPAD structure claims are comparatively under-filed relative to system integration and signal-processing claims.
Filing activity is US-centred with a real EPO and PCT tail
The United States receives more than three times the filings of the next office (EPO at 376), with WIPO/PCT filings at 258 indicating a meaningful share of applicants pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than filing US-only.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to lidar system photodetector, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee activity and momentum
Recent-year filing momentum has turned negative across the most active assignees tracked in this corpus, and co-filing activity is limited to a small number of pairs.
Even active filers are pulling back
The assignee with the highest latest-year count in this corpus filed only 3 records, down 40% year-on-year. Several other tracked assignees dropped to zero filings in the same period, some down 100% YoY from a prior baseline.
Collaboration is narrow and inventor-linked
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest links are between a single corporate assignee and named individual inventors rather than between two companies — indicating limited cross-company joint filing in this space.
US filing dominance with real international follow-through
The receiving-office split shows the US as the primary filing venue by a wide margin, but the EPO and PCT counts are large enough that a US-only freedom-to-operate check would miss a substantial share of active claims.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Innoviz Technologies | 3 | -40% |
| Cepton, Inc. | 1 | -50% |
| Luminar Technologies | 0 | — |
| Ouster, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Waymo LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Velodyne Lidar, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Seyond (formerly Innovusion) USA, Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The trend and composition data point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, white-space filing, or competitive tracking.
Check device-level claim space before filing
With H01L records at only 212 against 2,118 G01S records, a detector-structure claim is less likely to collide with dense prior art than a system-level ranging claim covering the same product.
Explore detector claim space in EurekaTrack momentum, not just historical volume
Several of the most active historical assignees show flat or negative year-on-year filing in the latest tracked period; a competitive watch should weight recent momentum over cumulative counts.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaVerify jurisdiction coverage for FTO
A meaningful share of filings route through EPO and PCT rather than the US alone, so a freedom-to-operate review limited to US filings will miss active claims.
Run a multi-jurisdiction search in EurekaCommon questions about LiDAR photodetector patents
The core classes are G01S7/486 and G01S17/10, which cover optical ranging systems and their receiver components, alongside H01L31/107, which covers avalanche photodiode semiconductor structure. In this dataset, G01S accounts for the overwhelming majority of records (2,118 of 2,154), meaning most claims describe how the detector integrates into a ranging system rather than the detector's internal semiconductor structure. A search limited to H01L alone would miss most of the relevant system-level prior art in this field.
Filings peaked at 345 in 2018 and had fallen to 210 by 2022, continuing downward since. Part of this is a genuine slowdown as the core system architectures matured and fewer new entrants filed foundational claims, but part of it is an artefact of publication lag — recent-year filings, especially the last one to two years, are systematically undercounted because applications are not yet published. The real recent-year rate is higher than the raw trend line shows.
The dataset tracks assignee momentum rather than static rankings, and the picture is one of broad pullback: the most active assignee in the latest full year filed only a handful of records, down sharply year-on-year, and several other historically active assignees filed zero in the same period. This suggests the competitive field has consolidated around a smaller set of active filers rather than expanding with new entrants.
Yes, primarily at the device level rather than the system level. Sub-areas such as SPAD pixel bias-circuit architecture, row/column signal-transmission logic within SPAD arrays, and avalanche photodiode semiconductor structure claims show materially lower filing density (H01L at 212 records) than system-level ranging integration claims (G01S at 2,118 records). A first claim in these areas would likely focus on a specific circuit-level implementation detail rather than a broad system architecture, which is already densely claimed.
The United States is the dominant receiving office with 1,237 records, more than three times the next largest office, the EPO at 376. WIPO/PCT filings at 258 and Germany at 68 show that a real share of applicants are pursuing broader international protection rather than filing in the US alone. Any freedom-to-operate or competitive analysis limited to US filings would miss a meaningful portion of active European and internationally-routed claims.
Research LiDAR System Photodetector in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole lidar system photodetector 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.