Medical Gas Systems & Oxygen Concentrator Patents: Top Companies 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The top 5 assignees hold 68.1% of all 119 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 93.3% — a small group of firms controls most of the filed art.
- Filing activity is flat to declining. The peak year so far is 2017 at 3 filings, with the 2022 midpoint at just 2, and no rebound visible before the data cut-off.
- Claim density sits in two IPC subclasses. A61M and B01D together cover the large majority of records, while adjacent classes like F16K and B03C appear in only a handful.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 119 published records at the intersection of medical gas delivery and oxygen concentration technology, spanning devices for body fluids, separation processes and inorganic gas chemistry. The search combines claim and title/abstract language around PSA oxygen purity, noise level, portable battery operation, pipeline alarms and regulatory standards with IPC classes covering respiratory devices, separation equipment and gas chemistry. Coverage runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, with the most recent year necessarily undercounted because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
Filing offices skew heavily toward the United States, followed by Europe and the WIPO PCT route, with smaller volumes from Japan and Australia — consistent with a field where commercialisation and reimbursement pathways concentrate in a few regulatory jurisdictions.
Filing trend and IPC composition
Two views of the same 119 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which technology classes carry the claim volume.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings peaked at 3 in 2017 and sat at 2 by the 2022 midpoint, with no year in the window showing a clear rebound before the 2026 partial-year cut-off. Read the tail years as a floor, not a ceiling, given publication lag.
IPC subclass composition
A61M (devices for body fluids) and B01D (separation processes) each cover roughly seven in ten of the 119 records, confirming that most claims sit at the device-and-separation boundary rather than in pure gas chemistry (C01B, 35.3%) or adjacent categories like rescue equipment or valves, which appear in single digits of records.
Shares are the percentage of the 119 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Medical Gas Systems and Oxygen Concentrators with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about medical gas systems and oxygen concentrators and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Oxygen concentrator with dynamic noise control (US10195390B2)
An oxygen concentrator with an inlet opening configured to receive air. The concentrator also includes a compressor configured to pressurize the air received through the inlet opening. An inlet opening restrictor is configured to dynamically change a characteristic of the inlet opening responsive to increased or decreased demand for the pressurized air. The concentrator further includes a sieve bed configured to separate the pressurized air into a concentrated gas component for delivery to a subject.Filed by Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., published 2019-02-05. The claim ties noise reduction to a dynamically adjustable inlet restrictor rather than passive enclosure damping.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6764534B2 | Portable oxygen concentrator | 218 |
| 2 | US4378982A | Compact oxygen concentrator | 150 |
| 3 | US6949133B2 | Portable oxygen concentrator | 124 |
| 4 | US20060117957A1 | Mini-portable oxygen concentrator | 99 |
| 5 | US7171963B2 | Product pump for an oxygen concentrator | 79 |
| 6 | US20060137522A1 | Oxygen concentrator for medical treatment | 76 |
| 7 | US7604004B2 | Personal oxygen concentrator | 63 |
| 8 | US7866315B2 | Method and apparatus for controlling the purity of oxygen produced by an oxygen concentrator | 62 |
| 9 | US20030167924A1 | Portable oxygen concentrator | 62 |
| 10 | US7780768B2 | Gas concentrator with improved water rejection capability | 57 |
Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and favour older filings; treat them as a signal of foundational claim scope, not 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 strategy
The filing pattern points to a mature, consolidated claim space rather than an open one — but a few corners remain thin.
A small group controls the core claim space
With the top 5 assignees holding 68.1% of all 119 records and the top 10 holding 93.3%, new entrants working in core PSA concentrator design are filing into territory already staked out by a handful of established players.
Activity is flat, not accelerating
The trend shows no sustained growth phase: the peak year so far is 2017 at 3 filings, and the 2022 midpoint sits lower at 2. This is a mature filing pattern rather than an emerging one, though the final years understate true activity due to publication lag.
Claims cluster at the device–separation boundary
A61M and B01D each appear in around seven in ten records, meaning most protected inventions combine a delivery device element with a separation-process element rather than claiming either in isolation.
Foundational portable-concentrator patents still anchor the field
The most-cited records in this corpus are early portable oxygen concentrator patents, indicating that later filings tend to build on — or design around — a small set of foundational claims rather than starting from a clean slate.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to medical gas systems and oxygen concentrators, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground and where it is open
The ranked leaders account for the great majority of filings in scope, with a steep drop-off after the top few names.
A clear single leader, then a fast taper
The leading assignee holds 27 of the 119 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked firm at 10 and the tenth-ranked firm at just 4 — a steep drop that suggests the leader's portfolio breadth, not just filing count, sets the boundary for new entrants.
Most ranked filers hold only a handful of records
Beyond the top 10, the remaining ranked assignees each hold small counts, pointing to a field where smaller firms and individual inventors file narrowly rather than building broad portfolios.
A handful of individual co-filing clusters exist
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with the strongest pairing sharing 8 records and two other pairings sharing 6 each — evidence of small inventor teams filing consistently together rather than broad cross-company collaboration.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Inova Labs, Inc. | 0 | — |
| AIRSEP CORP | 0 | — |
| VBOX INC | 0 | — |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | — |
| TAYLOR BRENTON | 0 | — |
| KOEPPEL BRADLEY STEWART | 0 | — |
| HANSEN PETER | 0 | — |
| Teijin Ltd. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a consolidated field with a few specific gaps rather than an open frontier — the next step is to test a concept against the claims actually granted.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's portfolio
With one assignee holding 27 of 119 records, any new PSA concentrator design should be checked against that portfolio's independent claims before development spend increases.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaProbe the under-claimed sub-areas
Branches like magnetic separation and pipeline alarm integration show low record counts relative to the core device-and-separation cluster, which may indicate open claim space rather than lack of interest.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack whether flat filing activity turns
Filing activity has been flat to declining since the 2017 peak; monitoring whether new entrants or a technology shift (e.g. battery-driven portable designs) changes that trend is worth a recurring check.
Set up trend monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
The ranked leader in this dataset holds 27 of the 119 records in scope, with a fast drop-off to 10 records at fifth place and 4 at tenth place. The top 5 assignees combined hold 68.1% of all records, and the top 10 hold 93.3%, meaning a small group of companies controls most of the filed claim space. Beyond that group, the remaining ranked assignees each hold only a handful of filings, so freedom-to-operate work should prioritise the leading names first.
Based on this dataset, filing activity is flat to declining rather than growing: the peak year so far is 2017 with 3 filings, and by the 2022 midpoint the count had dropped to 2. There is no visible rebound before the 2026 data cut-off, though the last one to two years are understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. Overall this reads as a mature filing pattern rather than an emerging technology area.
Claims concentrate heavily in two IPC subclasses: A61M (devices for body fluids), covering 72.3% of the 119 records, and B01D (separation processes including filtration), covering 69.7%. C01B, which covers non-metallic elements and inorganic gas chemistry, appears in 35.3% of records, while categories like valves (F16K) and magnetic/electrostatic separation (B03C) appear in only a few percent. This tells you that most protected inventions combine a delivery-device element with a separation-process element rather than claiming pure gas chemistry alone.
US10195390B2, filed by Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and published 2019-02-05, claims an oxygen concentrator with an inlet opening restrictor that dynamically changes to respond to increased or decreased demand for pressurized air, feeding a sieve bed for gas separation. It blocks designs that tie noise or flow control specifically to a dynamically adjustable inlet restriction mechanism. It does not, on its face, block passive noise-damping approaches or designs that regulate flow downstream of the sieve bed rather than at the inlet.
The IPC composition data shows several adjacent branches with much lower record counts than the core A61M/B01D cluster, including magnetic and electrostatic separation methods (B03C), valve and flow-control hardware (F16K), and rescue/life-saving gas delivery applications (A62B). These lower counts, relative to a field where the top 10 assignees already hold 93.3% of core records, suggest under-claimed territory for applicants willing to work in gas-separation methods or delivery-hardware integration outside the dominant device-and-sieve-bed paradigm. Any white-space claim should still be checked against the leading assignees' broader portfolios before filing.
Research Medical Gas Systems and Oxygen Concentrators in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole medical gas systems and oxygen concentrators 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.