MRI Patents: Top Companies, Trends & White Space 2026
- 16.8% of the field sits with five companies, 12,903 of 76,888 records, while a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants holds the rest.
- Filing activity peaked in 2022 at 1,598 records, and 2021-to-2024 volumes fell 33% (1,574 to 1,059) – though 2025-26 counts are still filling in due to publication lag.
- Image processing, not the magnet, dominates the claims, G06T image data processing appears on 11.8% of records, ahead of core diagnosis/surgery class A61B at 10.4%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (1,574 records) with 2024 (1,059) — 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 76,888 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the MRI patent record actually covers
The search set spans 76,888 published records filed or published between 2015 and 2026, drawn from filings that combine MRI scanning or scan hardware with a downstream data or diagnostic step – patient sample handling, medical image output, device interfaces, clinical measurement, diagnostic markers or assay reagents. That combination matters: it captures MRI not as a standalone magnet-and-coil hardware story but as a diagnostic pipeline, where a meaningful share of the claim activity sits in software and data processing layers rather than in the scanner itself.
Reading the filings this way surfaces a pattern that a hardware-only search would miss: image reconstruction, recognition and healthcare informatics classes carry more record volume than the core diagnosis and surgery class most people associate with MRI. That shifts where competitive risk and open claim space actually sit.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 76,888-record set: publication volume by year, and the IPC subclasses those records are filed under. Because a single record can carry several classes, the subclass shares add up to more than 100% – each is a share of all records in scope, not of a closed pie.
A decade of MRI-related filing, with a 2022 peak
Publications rose from 1,061 in 2017 to a peak of 1,598 in 2022. The 2021-to-2024 window shows a 33% decline (1,574 to 1,059), the most recent span that can be read as complete – 2025 and 2026 figures are still climbing as later-filed applications publish, so they should not yet be read as a continued fall.
Image and data classes outweigh core diagnostic hardware
G06T (image data processing and generation) leads at 11.8% of records, ahead of A61B (diagnosis and surgery) at 10.4%. G16H (healthcare informatics) sits at 6.7%, with G06K, G06F, G01R, G06V and G06N each contributing between 2.3% and 3.6% – a spread that shows claim activity distributed across the imaging-to-informatics pipeline rather than concentrated in one subclass.
Shares are the percentage of the 76,888 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about magnetic resonance imaging patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Magnetic resonance imaging system and method, and computer-readable storage medium
Provided in the present invention are a magnetic resonance imaging system and method, and a computer-readable storage medium. The method comprises performing a medical scan of a subject to acquire a first medical image with a first noise interference artifact, performing an additional scan to acquire a second medical image with a second noise interference artifact positioned symmetrically to the first relative to the pixel center, and performing synthesis-related processing on the two images to suppress the artifact.Filed by GE Precision Healthcare LLC, published 2023-02-02 as US20230036285A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5526822A | Method and apparatus for automated biopsy and collection of soft tissue | 2,450 |
| 2 | US20140275760A1 | Augmented reality image display system and surgical robot system comprising the same | 942 |
| 3 | US20140022283A1 | Augmented reality apparatus | 765 |
| 4 | US20100172567A1 | System and method for using three dimensional infrared imaging to provide detailed anatomical structure maps | 758 |
| 5 | US5714166A | Bioactive and/or targeted dendrimer conjugates | 751 |
| 6 | US20070167801A1 | Methods and apparatuses for image guided medical procedures | 730 |
| 7 | US5235510A | Computer-aided diagnosis system for medical use | 726 |
| 8 | US20210090694A1 | Data based cancer research and treatment systems and methods | 715 |
| 9 | US20050249667A1 | Process for treating a biological organism | 603 |
| 10 | US6157853A | Method and apparatus using shaped field of repositionable magnet to guide implant | 584 |
Citation counts reflect influence inside this searched corpus and skew toward older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations – they are not a measure 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 numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the record set is broken down by concentration, class and geography – each has a direct bearing on where a new filing is likely to face dense prior art versus open space.
Leadership is real but not dominant
The five leading assignees combine for 12,903 records, 16.8% of the full 76,888-record set; the top ten add up to 25.0%. That leaves three-quarters of the field spread across a long tail of fewer-filing entrants, which is unusually open for a diagnostic imaging category this large.
Recent volume decline needs care in reading
Published filings fell from 1,574 in 2021 to 1,059 in 2024, a 33% drop over the only three-year span that can be treated as complete. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 counts are still being filled in and should not be read as continued decline.
Software classes outrank the scanner class
G06T (image data processing) appears on a larger share of records than A61B (diagnosis and surgery), and G16H healthcare informatics adds another 6.7%. Claim density has moved toward reconstruction, recognition and informatics layers, which is where freedom-to-operate checks now need the most attention.
Filing is US-anchored with a solid EPO and PCT presence
The United States receiving office accounts for the largest single share of records at 11,683, followed by the EPO at 4,242 and WIPO/PCT at 2,708. Australia, Canada and the UK trail well behind, suggesting protection strategy for this category is built around US and European coverage first.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to magnetic resonance imaging patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where activity is cooling
The ranked leaders include established imaging OEMs alongside diagnostics and biotech names that entered through the assay-and-marker side of the search string. Recent-year momentum figures show a broad pullback in publication counts across several of the largest filers – consistent with the 2021-2024 decline, not a sign any one company has exited the space.
A clear top filer, with a wide gap to fifth place
The leading assignee holds 4,507 records against 1,823 at fifth place and 1,077 at tenth – a steep drop-off that marks a genuine leadership position rather than a crowded top tier.
Corporate restructuring shows up as co-assignee pairs
The strongest co-assignee pair links two entities from the same corporate group at 504 shared records, with further pairs linking a parent and its IP-holding affiliate, and a university partnership. These pairs typically reflect internal group filing structure rather than arm's-length collaboration.
Broad pullback in the latest published year across major filers
Several of the largest historical filers show sharp year-on-year declines in the latest year – down 74%, 86%, 98% and effectively to zero for some. This tracks the corpus-wide 2021-2024 decline and the publication lag rather than a sudden change in R&D investment.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Fujifilm Corporation | 14 | -74% |
| GE Precision Healthcare LLC | 5 | -86% |
| Canon Medical Systems Corporation | 1 | -98% |
| Canon Inc. | 1 | -83% |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | -100% |
| Siemens Healthineers AG | 0 | — |
| Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation | 0 | — |
| Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy or identifying open claim space.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on the informatics layer
With G06T, G16H and G06N classes carrying dense recent claim activity, any new filing touching image reconstruction or AI-based processing should be checked against this layer before the hardware layer.
Explore FTO workflows in EurekaTrack the leading assignees' recent-year filings directly
The sharp year-on-year drops among top filers in the latest published year are partly a publication-lag artefact; monitoring their most recent filings directly gives a truer read than the trend line alone.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaMap the co-assignee structure before assuming a competitor stands alone
Several of the largest filers file jointly with affiliated IP-holding entities, which can understate or fragment an apparent competitor's true portfolio size if read one assignee at a time.
Map assignee networks in EurekaCommon questions about the MRI patent landscape
The ranked assignee list is led by one company with 4,507 records, well ahead of the field – fifth place holds 1,823 and tenth place 1,077. The top five combined account for 16.8% of the full 76,888-record set, and the top ten for 25.0%, which means three-quarters of the field is spread across a long tail of smaller filers rather than concentrated among a handful of names. This is a moderately concentrated field, not a monopolised one.
Published filings peaked in 2022 at 1,598 records and the only complete comparison window, 2021 to 2024, shows a 33% decline from 1,574 to 1,059. However, patent publication typically lags the actual filing date by around 18 months, so the lower counts shown for 2025 and 2026 are an artefact of incomplete data, not proof of a real slowdown. A fair read is that filing cooled off its 2022 peak through 2024, with the most recent two years still too early to call.
Image data processing (IPC class G06T) covers 11.8% of the 76,888 records in scope, narrowly ahead of core diagnosis and surgery claims (A61B) at 10.4%. Healthcare informatics (G16H) adds another 6.7%, with data recognition, digital data processing, magnetic measurement, image recognition and AI-model computing each contributing smaller but meaningful shares. This shows that claim activity in MRI-adjacent filings is now spread across the imaging-to-informatics pipeline rather than sitting mainly in scanner hardware.
Based on the class composition and citation patterns reviewed here, comparatively thin claim density shows up around noise-artifact symmetry correction techniques, cross-modal image synthesis for artifact suppression, device-interface standardisation for scan handoff, and assay-reagent-linked diagnostic marker tagging. These sit at the intersection of established MRI hardware claims and newer data-processing claims, which is typically where under-claimed space persists longest. Any filing strategy here should still run a full freedom-to-operate check against the dense G06T and A61B prior art before committing to a specific claim scope.
The United States receiving office accounts for the largest share of records at 11,683, followed by the European Patent Office at 4,242 and the WIPO/PCT route at 2,708. Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom trail well behind those three. This pattern indicates that companies in this space typically build their core protection around US and European filings, using PCT as a bridge to broader international coverage.
Research Magnetic Resonance Imaging Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole magnetic resonance imaging patent landscape 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.