Measurement Uncertainty Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Concentrated but not locked. The five most active assignees hold 32.5% of the 234 records in scope, and the top ten hold 50.9% — leaving a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants.
- Filing has cooled since its peak. 2017 was the peak filing year at 20 records, and the last complete comparison shows filings falling from 10 in 2021 to 5 in 2024, a 50% drop.
- Testing and data-processing classes dominate. G01N material analysis carries 32.9% of records and G06F digital data processing carries 17.1%, while therapeutic and lab-apparatus classes sit well behind.
Filing growth compares 2021 (10 records) with 2024 (5) — 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 234 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent activity around measurement uncertainty evaluation — the methods used to quantify, propagate and report confidence in a measured value, including type A statistical evaluation, coverage factors, Monte Carlo propagation, input correlation and decision-rule reporting conventions. The scope spans 234 published records filed between 2015 and 2026, drawn from a search string built on those specific technical terms rather than a broad calibration keyword.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate actual filing activity and should be read as provisional rather than a genuine decline.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 234 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which technical classes carry the claims.
Filing trend: a 2017 peak, then a step down
Filings peaked at 20 records in 2017. The most recent complete comparison point runs from 10 records in 2021 to 5 in 2024, a 50% decline over that three-year span — a real cooling, though the 2025–2026 figures are still filling in and should not be read as confirming a further drop.
IPC composition: testing and data processing lead
G01N (material analysis and testing) appears on 32.9% of the 234 records, ahead of G06F (electric digital data processing) at 17.1%. C12Q (enzyme/DNA measurement), A61K/A61P (medicinal and therapeutic), G01D (general measuring and recording), G01M (structural testing) and B01L (lab apparatus) each carry smaller but non-trivial shares, since a single record can span several classes.
Shares are the percentage of the 234 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Measurement Uncertainty Evaluation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about measurement uncertainty evaluation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
EP1910781A1 — Method for evaluating measurement uncertainty and apparatus and system therefor
A method of evaluating uncertainty associated with the value of a measurand derived from measurements of a device under test, comprising providing a mathematical model wherein the measurand is expressed as a function of at least one physically observable quantity and its reference value in a reference device, measuring both the reference value and the device-under-test value, and determining at least one uncertainty value as a function of that physically observable quantity from the mathematical model.Filed by Calibration & Testing International Pte. Ltd., published 2008-04-16.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | EP1349098A1 | Method of performing geometric measurements on digital radiological images using graphical templates | 103 |
| 2 | US20090287520A1 | Technique for determining and reporting reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases at a site | 89 |
| 3 | US6792071B2 | Method of performing geometric measurements on digital radiological images | 87 |
| 4 | US6487523B2 | Model for spectral and chromatographic data | 79 |
| 5 | US20030194057A1 | Method of performing geometric measurements on digital radiological images | 69 |
| 6 | US20080266166A1 | Automatic dependent surveillance system secure ADS-S | 58 |
| 7 | US7876259B2 | Automatic dependent surveillance system secure ADS-S | 55 |
| 8 | US5682241A | Method and apparatus for overcoming cross-coupling in a fiber optic gyroscope employing overmodulation | 49 |
| 9 | US20090271233A1 | Valuing future information under uncertainty | 37 |
| 10 | US8399827B1 | Mass spectrometry systems | 34 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — treat them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not as 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
Four read-outs from the same dataset, each pointing at a different practical question: where claim density is highest, where activity has stalled, and where the citation record concentrates.
Leadership is real but not exclusive
The top five assignees hold 32.5% of all 234 records and the top ten hold 50.9%, leaving roughly half the field spread across the remaining ranked entrants. That is enough concentration to make the leader's claim scope worth reading closely, but not enough to call the space closed.
Filing has cooled from its 2017 peak
Volume peaked at 20 records in 2017 and has not returned to that level since. The most recent reliable comparison — 2021 to 2024 — shows a 50% drop in filings, a genuine slowdown rather than an artefact of publication lag.
Testing and data processing carry the claim load
G01N material analysis and testing is the single largest class at 32.9% of records, with G06F digital data processing second at 17.1%. Life-science-adjacent classes such as C12Q, A61K and A61P each hold smaller but meaningful shares, showing the method has been claimed into bio-assay and pharmaceutical contexts as well as instrumentation.
Older imaging-measurement filings anchor the citation graph
The most-cited records in this landscape are geometric-measurement and radiological-image patents from the early 2000s, together with a chromatographic-data model and an emissions-reporting technique. Their citation counts reflect years of accumulated references inside this corpus, not present-day filing priority.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to measurement uncertainty evaluation, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked list spans 100 companies, from a single leader with 21 records down to a long tail of one- and two-filing entrants. Co-assignee activity is thin — ten pairs in total — which points to mostly independent filing rather than joint-development patterns.
One clear leader, then a fast drop-off
The leading assignee holds 21 of the 234 records, roughly double the fifth-place holder's 10. That gap suggests a genuine first-mover position in method claims rather than a crowded top tier.
Most of the field files rarely
Beyond the top ten, which together hold 50.9% of records, the remaining ranked assignees each contribute small numbers of filings. This is typical of a methods-and-standards space where individual labs, universities and instrument makers file opportunistically rather than building large portfolios.
Collaboration is limited and localised
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, with the strongest link tying an agricultural research institute to a university partner. Most other filing activity in this space happens under a single assignee name, with little cross-institutional joint ownership.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Ricoh Co Ltd | 0 | — |
| Q Sera | 0 | — |
| Ghent University | 0 | — |
| INST VOOR LANDBOUW EN VISSERIJONDERZOEK ILVO | 0 | — |
| The Government of the United States of America as represented by the Secretary of Health & Human Services | 0 | — |
| Quimica Sintetica SA | 0 | — |
| E K Salt Ltd | 0 | — |
| Southern California Edison Co Inc | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio positioning, or spotting an open filing angle.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's claims
With one assignee holding 21 of 234 records, a design-around review should start with that portfolio's independent claims before scoping a new filing in coverage-factor or type A evaluation methods.
Explore claims in EurekaTrack the post-2021 filing slowdown by class
The 2021-to-2024 drop of 50% is aggregate; breaking it down by IPC subclass would show whether the cooling is uniform or concentrated in specific method classes like G01M or B01L.
Run a class-level trend queryScope a filing in an under-claimed branch
Monte Carlo propagation and input correlation handling show activity but comparatively low density next to the core G01N and G06F classes — a candidate area for a first claim rather than a crowded one.
Draft a claim scope in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
This landscape identifies 234 published records filed between 2015 and 2026 that match search terms specific to measurement uncertainty evaluation, including type A evaluation, coverage factor, Monte Carlo propagation, input correlation and decision-rule reporting. That count reflects a targeted method-level search rather than a broad calibration keyword, so it undercounts general metrology patents that do not use these specific terms. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures within that range are still incomplete.
The ranked list covers 100 assignees, with the leader holding 21 of the 234 records in scope and the fifth-ranked holder at 10. The top five combined hold 32.5% of all records and the top ten hold 50.9%, which means roughly half the field is spread across a long tail of smaller filers rather than concentrated at the very top. Co-assignee activity is limited to ten identified pairs, so most filing in this space happens under a single organisation rather than joint development.
Filing peaked at 20 records in 2017 and has not returned to that level. The most reliable recent comparison, from 2021 to 2024, shows a 50% decline, from 10 records down to 5. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are not yet complete due to normal publication lag and should not be read as confirming a further drop, but the 2021-to-2024 trend itself is a genuine slowdown.
G01N, material analysis and testing, is the largest single class, appearing on 32.9% of the 234 records, followed by G06F, electric digital data processing, at 17.1%. Smaller but notable shares fall under C12Q for enzyme and DNA measurement, A61K and A61P for medicinal and therapeutic applications, G01D for general measuring and recording, G01M for structural testing, and B01L for lab apparatus. A single record commonly carries more than one of these classes, since uncertainty methods are applied across many measurement domains rather than confined to one instrument type.
EP1910781A1 claims a method for evaluating measurement uncertainty using a mathematical model that expresses the measurand as a function of an observable quantity and its reference value, then derives uncertainty from measurements of both. It is a representative filing in this landscape rather than the single most-cited one, so its practical blocking scope depends on how narrowly its claims tie to that specific reference-device model. Anyone filing a new uncertainty-evaluation method should read its independent claims closely, particularly if the new approach also relies on a reference-value comparison structure, and consider whether alternative propagation techniques such as Monte Carlo methods fall outside its claim language.
Research Measurement Uncertainty Evaluation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole measurement uncertainty evaluation 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.