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/lidar-system-safety-and-compliance-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Photonics & Optics · Patent LandscapeLiDAR System Safety and Compliance Patents
- A small, concentrated field. 39 patent families total, with filings peaking at 11 in 2022 and no clear year-on-year growth since — this is a niche claim space, not a booming one.
- Eye-safe scanning dominates the citation record. The most-cited records in the dataset are all variants of the same "Eye-Safe Scanning LIDAR System" family, filed first in the US and mirrored through WIPO.
- G01S carries every record; adjacent IPC classes are thin. G02B, G05D and H01S each show only 3-4 records, and four other subclasses show exactly one — that is where claim space is still open.
39
Published Records
85%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-50%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (4 records) with 2024 (2) — 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 39 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset isolates patent families that sit at the intersection of LiDAR sensing and two compliance-driven concerns: laser eye safety (Class 1 compliance) and automotive functional safety (ISO 26262-aligned architectures). The search combines LiDAR/laser-scanner terminology with safety-specific claim language and IPC codes covering distance-ranging, laser diodes and non-electric control systems, so it excludes general-purpose LiDAR ranging patents that never address eye-safety thresholds or functional-safety redundancy.
Coverage runs from 2015 through the mid-2026 data cut-off, across 39 published families. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025-2026 figures understate actual filing activity and should be read as provisional.
Filing activity, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on LiDAR System Safety and Compliance 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 39-family dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim volume.
Flat-to-declining filing activity
Filings were at zero in 2017, built toward a peak of 11 in 2022, and have not sustained that level since — consistent with a compliance niche that was addressed rather than one still being actively opened up.
Heavily weighted toward G01S
Every one of the 39 records touches G01S (radar, sonar and positioning), the parent classification for ranging systems. Optical elements (G02B), non-electric control (G05D) and laser sources (H01S) each carry only a handful of records, and four further subclasses appear just once each — a sign that safety-specific claims are still concentrated in the core ranging architecture rather than spread across the optical or control stack.
Shares are the percentage of the 39 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 LiDAR System Safety and Compliance covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on LiDAR System Safety and Compliance with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about lidar system safety and compliance and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey patents
The records other filings cite
Representative filing
LONG-RANGE LiDAR (US20240219527A1)
NEURAL PROPULSION SYSTEMS, INC.
Discloses a LiDAR system using multiple illuminators, each covering a distinct field of view, paired with a detector array whose field of view overlaps the illuminator fields. A processor sequences pulse emission and signal capture across the illuminator set, a structure aimed at extending range while keeping per-pulse energy within eye-safe bounds.Filed by Neural Propulsion Systems, published 2024-07-04.
Most-cited records in this dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20180259623A1 | Eye-Safe Scanning LIDAR System | 70 |
| 2 | WO2018169758A1 | Eye-safe scanning lidar system | 29 |
| 3 | US11016178B2 | Eye-safe scanning LIDAR system | 24 |
| 4 | US20210231779A1 | Eye-Safe Scanning LIDAR System | 15 |
| 5 | EP3710855A2 | Noise adaptive solid-state lidar system | 14 |
| 6 | EP3596492A1 | Eye-safe scanning lidar system | 14 |
| 7 | US20210231781A1 | MEMS-based hybrid beam steering device for lidar | 9 |
| 8 | US9026278B2 | LDV system for measuring wind at high altitude | 9 |
| 9 | WO2010020755A2 | Lidar mean power reduction | 7 |
| 10 | WO2023105463A1 | A system and method for lidar blockage detection | 5 |
Citation counts favour older filings inside any searched corpus — treat this as a map of influence, 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 LiDAR System Safety and Compliance 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 filing strategy
Three read-throughs from the trend, the citation table and the technology split.
Filing pattern
Peak 11 (2022)
families filed, single year
The field has already crested
Filings rose from zero to a peak of 11 in 2022 and have not exceeded that since, with the most recent years showing no measurable growth. For a compliance-driven niche this often means the core architectures were staked out early and later entrants are filing narrower, incremental claims rather than opening new ground.
Read against a data cut-off of mid-2026, understated by publication lag.
Citation concentration
70 citations
top-cited record
One eye-safe scanning family anchors the field
The single most-cited record, an eye-safe scanning LIDAR system filed in the US, draws far more citations than any other family, with its WIPO and continuation counterparts also ranking near the top. Later filers are building on this architecture rather than around it.
Older filings accumulate citations by default; treat this as influence, not current relevance.
Technology split
39 of 39 in G01S
records touching the core ranging class
Safety claims sit inside the ranging architecture
Every record in this dataset touches G01S, the ranging and positioning classification, while optics (G02B), control systems (G05D) and laser sources (H01S) each carry only a handful of records. Safety and compliance claims are being written into the ranging system itself rather than as separate optical or control-layer inventions.
Four further subclasses appear only once each — early markers of unclaimed adjacency.
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 lidar system safety and compliance, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on LiDAR System Safety and Compliance 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
Who's filing
Assignees active in LiDAR safety and compliance
This is a small field: 39 families spread across a mix of specialist LiDAR makers, defence-linked research groups and one university consortium, with no assignee showing growth in the latest tracked year.
Specialist LiDAR maker
0 in latest year
recent-year filings
Opsys Tech
Filed jointly with individual named inventors on at least one family, consistent with an engineering-team-driven filing pattern typical of a solid-state LiDAR specialist rather than a diversified electronics group.
No filings recorded in the latest tracked year.
Established sensing vendor
-100% YoY
year-on-year change
Innoviz Technologies
Shows a sharp year-on-year drop to zero filings in the latest tracked year, a pattern consistent with a company that front-loaded its safety and compliance claims earlier in the dataset window rather than filing continuously.
Momentum figures reflect the most recent tracked year only.
Defence & metrology group
0 in latest year
recent-year filings
QinetiQ
Appears with multiple named co-inventors across separate families, suggesting a research-and-development team filing pattern rather than a single dominant inventor — typical of a defence-sector metrology group applying scanning-safety principles to LiDAR.
Co-assignee pairs with named inventors appear twice in the strongest-pairs data.
Recent-year filing momentum
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Opsys Tech | 0 | — |
| Innoviz Technologies | 0 | -100% |
| Hexagon Technology Center | 0 | — |
| Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona | 0 | — |
| Neural Propulsion Systems, Inc. | 0 | — |
| QinetiQ Limited | 0 | — |
| Shenzhen RoboSense Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| STONE STEVEN MATTHEW | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on LiDAR System Safety and Compliance 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 analysis
The dataset points to a mature, narrow claim space with specific gaps rather than an expanding frontier. Two directions make sense from here.
Map freedom-to-operate against the eye-safe scanning family
With one family drawing the bulk of citations, any new eye-safe scanning design should be checked claim-by-claim against that lineage and its continuations before committing to an architecture.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaProbe the under-claimed adjacent subclasses
G01B, G01C, G01J and G01N each show only a single record touching LiDAR safety — worth a deeper search to confirm whether that reflects genuine white space or simply classification drift.
Explore white space in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on LiDAR System Safety and Compliance 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 about LiDAR safety patents
This dataset identifies 39 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine LiDAR or laser-scanner terminology with eye-safety or automotive functional-safety claim language. That is a small, tightly scoped set compared to LiDAR ranging patents generally, because it excludes filings that describe ranging hardware without addressing Class 1 laser compliance or ISO 26262-style safety architecture. Filing activity peaked at 11 families in a single year, 2022, and has not exceeded that level since.
The most-cited record in this dataset is a US filing titled "Eye-Safe Scanning LIDAR System," which has drawn 70 citations, well ahead of any other record tracked. Its WIPO-published counterpart and a related continuation also rank among the top-cited families, indicating the underlying architecture has been widely referenced by later filers. High citation counts inside an older filing are partly a function of age, so this should be read as a marker of influence rather than a claim that the technology remains state of the art today.
Not currently, based on this dataset. Filings rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 11 in 2022, and the years since have not matched that peak, which points to flat or declining activity rather than sustained growth. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any such trend will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be, so some caution is warranted before concluding the field has fully plateaued.
Every family in this dataset touches the core ranging classification G01S, but several adjacent classes — material analysis (G01N), radiation and light measurement (G01J), length measurement (G01B) and navigation/gyroscope systems (G01C) — each show only a single record. That pattern suggests safety-specific claims have mostly been written into the ranging architecture itself, leaving related optical-measurement and navigation-fusion approaches to eye-safety and functional-safety compliance comparatively unclaimed. A deeper search within those subclasses is the practical next step to confirm whether that gap is real or an artefact of classification.
The dataset shows a mix of specialist LiDAR makers, defence-linked research groups and university-affiliated bodies, including Opsys Tech, Innoviz Technologies, QinetiQ, Hexagon Technology Center, the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona, and Neural Propulsion Systems. None of these assignees shows filing growth in the most recent tracked year, and one, Innoviz, shows a full year-on-year drop to zero — consistent with a field where early movers staked out core claims and filing has since slowed across the board.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on LiDAR System Safety and Compliance 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 LiDAR System Safety and Compliance in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole lidar system safety and compliance 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.