Medical Imaging Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 20.4% concentration at the top. The five most active assignees together hold 14,183 of the 69,359 records in scope, but the other 79.6% is a long tail rather than a second tier of equals.
- Filing cooled from a 2021 peak. Activity ran from 1,658 records in 2021 to 1,086 in 2024, a 34% pullback over that span, before the still-incomplete 2025-2026 window that always understates the true count.
- Image processing outweighs the clinical claim itself. G06T image data processing appears on 12.9% of records, ahead of A61B diagnosis-and-surgery claims at 11.4%, showing where the drafting pressure actually sits.
Filing growth compares 2021 (1,658 records) with 2024 (1,086) — 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 69,359 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the medical imaging patent record actually shows
The dataset covers 69,359 published records filed against medical imaging together with terms like patient sample, device interface and imaging signal, spanning 2015 through the 2026 cut-off. It captures both the imaging hardware and software layer and the clinical measurement layer that consumes the image, which is why the technology composition spreads across data-processing classes as much as diagnostic ones. Reading the ranking, the trend and the class breakdown together separates where claim space is dense from where it is still open.
Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the last one to two years in any chart will always look lighter than they eventually turn out to be. The figures below use 2024 as the most recent complete year for growth comparisons, and patent families rather than raw document counts wherever the ranking allows it, since families neutralise continuation and multi-jurisdiction filing behaviour that would otherwise inflate a single applicant's footprint.
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 69,359 records: how filing volume moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A 2021 peak, then a real pullback
Filings rose from 1,191 in 2017 to a peak of 1,658 in 2021, then fell to 1,086 by 2024 – a 34% decline over that three-year window. That is a genuine cooling, not a filing artefact, since both endpoints are complete years; the 2025-2026 figures sitting further below should be read as still filling in rather than as a continuation of the drop.
Image processing carries more weight than the clinical claim
G06T (image data processing and generation) touches 12.9% of records and A61B (diagnosis and surgery) 11.4%, with G16H healthcare informatics at 8.0%. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add to more than the record total by design – the pattern to note is that the computational layer around the image is claimed at least as densely as the clinical procedure it supports.
Shares are the percentage of the 69,359 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Medical Imaging Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about medical imaging patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records that define the citation graph
Method of verifying a position of an interventional device (US11723616B2, CART-TECH B.V, 2023-08-15)
The claim chains a diagnostic medical image through segmentation of a diseased-area region, definition of a treatment location inside that segmented data, identification of a treatment surface, and positioning of an interventional device against a normal to that surface's local tangent plane – tying image analysis directly to device guidance rather than treating them as separate steps.Abstract trimmed to the claim-relevant steps; see the full record for complete claim language.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20100145146A1 | Endoscopic digital recording system with removable screen and storage device | 1,578 |
| 2 | US20040100376A1 | Healthcare monitoring system | 859 |
| 3 | US10314559B2 | Medical device guidance | 796 |
| 4 | US5784162A | Spectral bio-imaging methods for biological research, medical diagnostics and therapy | 787 |
| 5 | US20140022283A1 | Augmented reality apparatus | 765 |
| 6 | US20100172567A1 | System and method for using three dimensional infrared imaging to provide detailed anatomical structure maps | 758 |
| 7 | WO2011090760A1 | Heteroaryl compounds and uses thereof | 751 |
| 8 | US20210090694A1 | Data based cancer research and treatment systems and methods | 715 |
| 9 | WO2009158571A1 | Heteroaryl compounds and uses thereof | 691 |
| 10 | US20070118243A1 | Personal fit medical implants and orthopedic surgical instruments and methods for making | 678 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations – treat this table as a map of influence on later drafting, not a ranking of current technical 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 findings that change where a new application should – or should not – be aimed.
The top is real but narrow
The five most active assignees hold 20.4% of all 69,359 records, and the top ten hold 27.0%. That leaves nearly three-quarters of the field to entities outside the ranked leaders, which is a long tail rather than a crowded second tier – useful context before assuming any single competitor blocks a given claim.
Peak filing has passed, for now
Volume ran from 1,658 records in 2021 down to 1,086 in 2024, a 34% decline across two complete years. Recent-year momentum at several leading assignees also shows sharp year-on-year drops, though the very latest year is still incomplete for every filer and should not be read as a trend on its own.
The image-processing layer outweighs the clinical layer
G06T (image data processing and generation) sits on 12.9% of records against 11.4% for A61B diagnosis-and-surgery claims. G16H healthcare informatics follows at 8.0%. New applicants competing purely on clinical workflow claims are filing into a field where the surrounding computational claims are at least as dense.
US filing dominates the receiving-office mix
The United States receives 11,527 of the records in scope, more than double the EPO's 4,175 and well ahead of the 2,654 filed via WIPO's PCT route. Jurisdictional strategy in this field still runs primarily through the US office, with Europe as the clear second venue.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to medical imaging patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and who is pulling back
The ranking spans 100 companies counted in records; a handful of names anchor the top, but recent-year momentum for several of them has turned sharply negative.
A single leader well ahead of fifth place
The top-ranked assignee holds 6,455 records against 1,384 at fifth place and 756 at tenth, a steep drop-off that marks this as a genuine leader rather than a crowded top tier.
Leading filers have pulled back sharply
Several of the most active assignees show latest-year filing counts down 88-100% year on year, including filers that recorded zero filings in the latest year. Given publication lag, some of this is the incomplete final year rather than a genuine stop in filing activity.
Co-assignment clusters around corporate affiliates
The strongest co-assignee pairs link a parent and its imaging subsidiary or IP-holding entity, rather than unrelated companies co-developing technology. That pattern suggests most joint filings here reflect corporate structure, not cross-company collaboration.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| GE Precision Healthcare LLC | 7 | -88% |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | -100% |
| Siemens Healthcare GmbH | 0 | — |
| Brainlab AG | 0 | -100% |
| Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
The landscape points to a narrow leadership tier, a cooling but not collapsing filing rate, and claim density concentrated in image processing over clinical procedure. The next step is testing a specific claim against this backdrop.
Check a draft claim against the crowded classes
If a new application sits inside G06T or A61B, expect dense prior art and plan claim scope accordingly rather than assuming novelty from the clinical use case alone.
Run a claim check in EurekaWatch the leaders that are pulling back
Several top-ranked assignees show sharp year-on-year filing declines; confirm whether that reflects strategic withdrawal or simply the incomplete latest year before reading it as an opening.
Track assignee momentum in EurekaExplore the under-claimed branches
Sub-areas like multi-modal fusion workflows and device-interface protocols show thinner filing density than the core classes – worth a freedom-to-operate pass before assuming they are open.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about the medical imaging patent landscape
The ranking covers 100 companies, with a single leader holding 6,455 records well ahead of a fifth-place assignee at 1,384 and a tenth-place assignee at 756. That gap marks a genuine leader rather than a crowded top tier, though the top five together account for only 20.4% of all 69,359 records in scope. The remaining activity spreads across a long tail of assignees rather than a defined second group, so competitive risk assessment should not stop at the named leaders.
Filing rose from 1,191 records in 2017 to a peak of 1,658 in 2021, then declined to 1,086 by 2024, a 34% drop across that three-year span using the two most recent complete years. Years after 2024 in any chart will look lower still, but that is largely a publication-lag effect – patents typically publish around 18 months after filing – and should not be read as a continued fall. The honest read is a real cooling from the 2021 peak, with the very latest trend still uncertain.
G06T, image data processing and generation, appears on 12.9% of the 69,359 records, the single densest class, ahead of A61B diagnosis-and-surgery claims at 11.4% and G16H healthcare informatics at 8.0%. Because a record can carry multiple IPC classes these shares add to more than the total, but the ordering is informative: the computational layer that processes the image is claimed at least as heavily as the clinical procedure itself. Applicants filing purely on clinical workflow without addressing the processing layer are entering the less crowded side of the field.
The white space sits in the adjacent branches that show thinner filing relative to the core G06T and A61B classes – areas such as multi-modal image fusion workflows, real-time device-interface protocols, AI-model-based triage that overlaps G06N, and sample-to-image correlation claims. These are not empty, but they are visibly less dense than the core processing and diagnosis classes. A freedom-to-operate search focused specifically on those sub-areas, rather than the crowded core, is the more productive first step.
US11723616B2, filed by CART-TECH B.V and granted in 2023, chains diagnostic image segmentation, treatment-location definition, treatment-surface identification and device positioning against a surface normal into a single claimed method. That chaining is the key risk: a competing product that performs each step separately might still fall inside the claim if it reaches the same segmentation-to-positioning sequence. Anyone building interventional-device guidance software should map their own pipeline against each of those four steps individually rather than assuming a different implementation avoids the claim.
Research Medical Imaging Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole medical 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.