LiDAR System Semiconductor Laser Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- Filings peaked in 2020 at 181 and have not recovered, with 2026 tracking at just 8 so far — a plateau, not a growth curve, once the 18-month publication lag is accounted for.
- G01S dominates at 1,152 of 1,164 records, while H01S (laser-specific claims) sits at only 223 and B81B (MEMS) at 25 — the laser source itself is comparatively under-claimed next to the ranging system around it.
- Momentum is cooling across the named leaders, with several tracked assignees posting -33% to -100% year-over-year and one showing a single filing at flat 0% — no assignee in this set is currently accelerating.
Filing growth compares 2021 (174 records) with 2024 (48) — 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 1,164 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 their semiconductor laser sources — VCSEL arrays, pulsed laser diodes, fiber laser sources and seed lasers — filed against IPC classes covering laser devices (H01S5/00, H01S5/42) and optical ranging (G01S7/481). It spans 1,164 published records from 2015 through the mid-2026 data cut-off, with receiving-office activity concentrated in the United States, at the EPO and via WIPO/PCT filings.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025-2026 figures in any trend line understate real filing activity; treat the last one to two years as a floor, not a ceiling. The IPC composition below is the more durable signal: it shows where claim density sits today, independent of any single recent year.
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 1,164-family dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how the underlying technology splits across IPC subclasses.
A 2020 peak followed by a plateau
Annual filings rose from 63 in 2017 to a peak of 181 in 2020, held near that level through the 2022 midpoint at 172, then eased off. Read the final one to two years as incomplete rather than as a genuine decline — the publication lag means recent filings are still arriving.
Ranging systems dominate; laser-specific claims are the minority
G01S (radar, sonar and positioning) covers 1,152 of 1,164 records, essentially the entire set, since it is the search anchor. Within that, G02B optical elements appear in 256 records and H01S laser devices in 223 — meaning most filings claim the LiDAR system architecture around the laser, not the laser source itself. MEMS-based beam steering (B81B) appears in only 25 records, and radiation measurement (G01J) in 25 more, both comparatively thin.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,164 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on LiDAR System Semiconductor Laser with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about lidar system semiconductor laser and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records and a representative recent filing
US20240019551A1 — Optical system for light detection and ranging
The filing describes a LiDAR system built around a VCSEL array with a first aspect ratio, paired with transmission optics that illuminate a field of view at a second, larger aspect ratio. An image sensor array with line readout and a third, distinct aspect ratio is used on the receive side, with reception optics imaging the reflected light back onto it.Filed by an entity recorded as Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as collateral agent — a reminder that assignee-of-record in this dataset can reflect a financing or security arrangement rather than the operating company that developed the technology.
| # | 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 | US20170153319A1 | Lidar system with distributed laser and multiple sensor heads | 413 |
| 3 | US9869754B1 | Scan patterns for lidar systems | 256 |
| 4 | US20170155225A1 | Pulsed laser for lidar system | 249 |
| 5 | US20150055117A1 | Devices and Methods for a Rotating LIDAR Platform with a Shared Transmit/Receive Path | 241 |
| 6 | US10324170B1 | Multi-beam lidar system with polygon mirror | 214 |
| 7 | US20170299697A1 | Light Detection and Ranging System with Photonic Integrated Circuit | 201 |
| 8 | US20190011567A1 | Light ranging device with MEMS scanned emitter array and synchronized electronically scanned sensor array | 196 |
| 9 | US20150219764A1 | Low cost small size lidar for automotive | 194 |
| 10 | US10007001B1 | Active short-wave infrared four-dimensional camera | 188 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the corpus — treat this as a measure of influence on later filings, not of current commercial 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 family counts, IPC splits and receiving offices are read together.
The wave has crested
Annual filings held near their 2020 peak through 2022 before easing. Combined with the flat momentum seen across named assignees, this looks like a maturing filing wave rather than an emerging one — new entrants now face denser prior art with less headroom to claim broad system architecture.
The laser source is the thinner layer
Only about a fifth of records sit in H01S (lasers and stimulated emission) despite the search anchoring on semiconductor laser components. Most claim value has accrued to the ranging system, optics and control layers around the laser rather than to the laser device itself.
Filing strategy is US-centric
The United States accounts for the large majority of receiving-office activity, with EPO and PCT/WIPO routes a distant second and third. China's 21 filings in this set are comparatively small next to the overall volume, worth checking against separate China-specific searches before concluding the market is unclaimed there.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to lidar system semiconductor laser, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Beijing Voyager Technology Co., Ltd. | YE GANG | 5 |
| Beijing Voyager Technology Co., Ltd. | CHEN WANLI | 3 |
| Opsys Technologies | DONOVAN MARK J | 1 |
| Beijing Voyager Technology Co., Ltd. | ZHOU QIN | 1 |
| Beijing Voyager Technology Co., Ltd. | YEH YU CHING | 1 |
| Beijing Voyager Technology Co., Ltd. | WANG YOUMIN | 1 |
| SOS Lab Co., Ltd. | FURONTEER | 1 |
| Innoviz Technologies Ltd. (Israel) | ESHEL RONEN | 1 |
Only 8 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest pairing links a Beijing-based operator with two named individual inventors — a pattern of inventor-linked filings rather than broad corporate joint ventures.
Who is filing, and where momentum has gone
Recent-year momentum across the tracked assignees is uniformly weak: every named player in the momentum data is flat or declining year over year, none is accelerating.
SOS Lab still filing, but slowing
SOS Lab posted 4 filings in the latest tracked year, the highest count among the named momentum group, but that is down a third from the year before — consistent with the broader plateau seen in the overall trend.
Aurora Innovation pulls back
Aurora's operating entity shows a two-thirds drop in the latest year. Read this alongside the publication lag: some of the apparent decline will fill in as later filings publish, but the direction across nearly every tracked name is the same.
Innoviz holds steady at one filing
Innoviz Technologies (Israel) shows a single filing in the latest year, unchanged from the prior year. Flat-at-one is a different signal from flat-at-high-volume: it suggests continued but minimal activity rather than an active filing programme.
Two named entities show zero recent filings
Both a Luminar-linked entity and Ouster's technology entity show zero filings in the latest tracked year against a prior year with activity — a full stop rather than a slowdown, though this may partly reflect publication lag rather than an actual halt in R&D.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| SOS Lab Co., Ltd. | 4 | -33% |
| Aurora Operations, Inc. | 2 | -67% |
| Innoviz Technologies Ltd. (Israel) | 1 | 0% |
| Luminar Technologies | 0 | -100% |
| Hesai / Tudatong Intelligent America (Innovusion) | 0 | — |
| Opsys Technologies | 0 | -100% |
| Waymo LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Beijing Voyager Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The trend and IPC data point to a maturing filing wave with specific gaps still open around the laser source itself.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on VCSEL array claims
The most-cited record in this dataset centres on VCSEL array components, and the H01S subclass — while thinner than G01S overall — still carries dense claim coverage from established players. Before filing on VCSEL geometry or driving circuitry, map the existing claim boundaries directly.
Explore VCSEL claim coverage in EurekaInvestigate the MEMS and fiber-laser gaps
B81B (MEMS) and fiber-laser-source claims sit well below the H01S and G02B counts. That gap may reflect genuine white space or simply a different search vocabulary catching those filings elsewhere — worth a targeted search before treating it as open.
Search adjacent IPC classes in EurekaTrack momentum before assuming a competitor has exited
Several named assignees show sharp year-over-year declines that could reflect the publication lag rather than an actual pullback. Re-run the momentum view in six to twelve months before concluding a competitor has left the space.
Set up a filing alert in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
Filing activity in this dataset is spread across a mix of automotive LiDAR specialists and component suppliers, with no single assignee holding a dominant share of the 1,164 tracked families. Recent-year momentum data shows every named leader either flat or declining year over year, which suggests the field has passed its most active filing period rather than being led by one accelerating player. For a current competitive view, cross-reference filing counts with the co-assignee and momentum tables rather than relying on citation counts, which favour older records.
Not on the evidence here: annual filings rose to a peak of 181 in 2020, held near that level through 2022, and have since eased, with the 2026 partial-year count at 8. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the last one to two years will fill in somewhat as more records publish, but the multi-year plateau from 2020 through 2022 is a real signal. Treat this as a maturing filing wave rather than an emerging one when deciding how much white space remains for broad system claims.
In this dataset, G01S (radar, sonar and positioning) covers essentially the full record set at 1,152 of 1,164, since it anchors the underlying search, while H01S (lasers and stimulated emission) appears in only 223 records. That gap means most filings claim the ranging system, control logic or optics around the laser rather than the semiconductor laser device itself. A team developing a novel VCSEL array, pulsed laser diode or fiber laser source specifically should expect thinner but still meaningful prior art in H01S and should search that subclass directly rather than relying on general LiDAR-system prior art searches.
The thinner IPC subclasses in this dataset — B81B (MEMS, 25 records) and G01J (radiation and light measurement, 25 records) — point toward MEMS-based beam steering integration and light-measurement calibration as comparatively under-claimed relative to the 1,152-record G01S core. Fiber laser source coupling and seed-laser wavelength stabilisation also sit outside the densest claim clusters. These are leads for a targeted search, not a guarantee of open space, since low record counts can also mean a technology is classified elsewhere or genuinely less commercially pursued.
The United States accounts for 722 of the receiving-office filings in this dataset, far ahead of the EPO at 159 and WIPO/PCT routes at 147, with Germany, Israel and China each in the low 20s. This US-centric pattern suggests that companies developing LiDAR laser technology have prioritised US protection first, often followed by European or PCT filings for broader coverage. The comparatively low China count, at 21, is worth checking against a China-specific search rather than assumed as evidence of an open Chinese market, since filing strategy and search vocabulary both affect what surfaces in a single dataset.
Research LiDAR System Semiconductor Laser in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole lidar system semiconductor laser 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.