Medical Ultrasound Imaging AI Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- Filing has cooled since its 2019 peak. 149 families in 2019 versus 25 in the most recent (partial) year, with the 2022 midpoint of 136 already below peak — this is a maturing claim space, not a growing one.
- One applicant family dominates co-filing. Philips and Philips Image Guided Therapy co-assignee 17 times, far ahead of any other pair, signalling a tightly coordinated internal filing strategy rather than fragmented ownership.
- Momentum is falling across every major filer. Philips is down 64% year-on-year, GE Healthcare down 82%, Siemens Healthineers down 80% — the leaders are pulling back at once, which is unusual for an active AI sub-field.
Filing growth compares 2021 (108 records) with 2024 (132) — 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 1,130 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families at the intersection of ultrasound imaging hardware and machine learning-based image analysis — automated measurement, lesion classification and image enhancement layered onto transducer array and B-mode systems. The search spans filings from 2015 through mid-2026 across A61B diagnostic and surgical apparatus, G06T image processing, G01S sonar/positioning and G06N AI-model computing.
Filing concentrates heavily in A61B (1,059 of 1,130 records), with G06T image processing as the largest secondary class at 410. The United States receives the most filings by a wide margin, followed by the EPO and PCT routes, indicating that applicants are securing US rights first and using international filings selectively rather than blanket-filing across all major markets.
Filing trend and technology composition
Publication figures for the most recent year are understated because grant and publication typically lag filing by around 18 months; treat the final year as a partial count, not a drop-off.
A post-2019 plateau, not a growth curve
Filings rose to a peak of 149 in 2019, then settled into a lower band — 2022 sits at 136 — before the visible decline into the most recent partial year. Read this as a claim space that filled up early rather than one still being built out.
A61B carries the field; G06T is the real AI signal
A61B's 1,059 records reflect the base diagnostic-device filing requirement; G06T (410), G16H (174) and G06N (132) are where the machine learning and informatics claims actually sit, and their smaller counts relative to A61B show AI-specific claiming is still a minority practice within ultrasound filings overall.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,130 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Medical Ultrasound Imaging AI and Machine Learning with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about medical ultrasound imaging ai and machine learning and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited prior art and a representative recent filing
US20250295391A1 — Machine learning methods and systems to detect internal markers using ultrasound imaging
Systems, methods, and computer readable media for detecting internal markers using ultrasound imaging. In some examples, a method includes using ultrasound imaging to scan an interior of a target object. The method includes providing scanned images generated by the ultrasound imaging as input to a machine learning software system configured to host a convolutional neural network (CNN) model. The method includes detecting, by the CNN model, a location of at least one internal marker inside the target object using the scanned images. The method includes extracting identification information stored in the at least one marker.Filed by Texas A&M University System, published 2025-09-25 — illustrates that active claiming continues from academic assignees even as commercial-leader filing volume declines.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20130116561A1 | Transmissive imaging and related apparatus and methods | 234 |
| 2 | US20140243614A1 | Transmissive imaging and related apparatus and methods | 177 |
| 3 | US8852103B2 | Transmissive imaging and related apparatus and methods | 132 |
| 4 | US7297117B2 | Method for optimization of transmit and receive ultrasound pulses, particularly for ultrasonic imaging | 127 |
| 5 | US20130190600A1 | System and Method for Identifying an Optimal Image Frame for Ultrasound Imaging | 119 |
| 6 | US20030044354A1 | Gas microsphere liposome composites for ultrasound imaging and ultrasound stimulated drug release | 107 |
| 7 | US20190282211A1 | Scoring intravascular lesions and stent deployment in medical intraluminal ultrasound imaging | 90 |
| 8 | US20120083692A1 | Pressure control in medical diagnostic ultrasound imaging | 85 |
| 9 | US20190336107A1 | Ultrasound imaging system with a neural network for image formation and tissue characterization | 75 |
| 10 | US20210259660A1 | Biopsy prediction and guidance with ultrasound imaging and associated devices, systems, and methods | 66 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within this searched corpus — treat this as a signal of influence on later filers, not as 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 patterns stand out once families are counted rather than raw documents: where claim density sits, who is coordinating filings, and how fast the leaders are actually moving.
Diagnostic-device claims are the base layer, not the differentiator
Nearly every record in this corpus sits inside A61B, the diagnosis-and-surgery apparatus class. That is expected for any ultrasound hardware filing and means A61B alone tells you little about AI novelty — the differentiating claims live in the smaller G06T, G16H and G06N counts layered on top.
Coordinated internal filing beats fragmented ownership
The strongest co-assignee pair by a wide margin belongs to two Philips-affiliated entities filing together. Ten total co-assignee pairs exist in this dataset, but this one pairing outweighs the rest combined — a sign of one applicant managing IP across related business units rather than joint ventures with outside parties.
Every major assignee is slowing at once
Philips, GE Healthcare and Siemens Healthineers all show double-digit percentage declines in the latest year versus the prior one. A synchronized pullback across leaders in an active AI sub-field is more consistent with a plateaued claim space than with a single company's strategy shift.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to medical ultrasound imaging ai and machine learning, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gate sits
Filing activity concentrates among a small group of established ultrasound device makers, with academic and smaller imaging-focused entrants filing at low but steady volume.
Philips still leads volume but is pulling back fastest in absolute terms
Philips remains the largest single filer in the latest year even after a steep year-on-year decline, and its coordinated filing with Philips Image Guided Therapy suggests a deliberate portfolio strategy rather than opportunistic filing.
GE Healthcare's steepest drop signals a strategy shift
GE HealthCare Precision Healthcare shows the sharpest percentage decline among major filers, dropping to just 2 filings in the latest year — worth watching for whether this reflects a pause or a shift toward trade secrecy.
Smaller specialists are holding flat rather than retreating
Philips Image Guided Therapy and Exo Imaging both show flat year-on-year filing at low volume, distinguishing steady niche participation from the sharper declines seen at the largest incumbents.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Royal Philips) | 8 | -64% |
| GE Precision Healthcare LLC | 2 | -82% |
| Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. | 1 | -80% |
| Philips Image Guided Therapy Corporation | 1 | 0% |
| Exo Imaging, Inc. | 1 | 0% |
| Butterfly Network, Inc. | 0 | — |
| FUJIFILM SonoSite, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Samsung Medison Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this next
The trend and assignee data point to specific next steps depending on whether you are scoping freedom-to-operate or planning where to file.
Check the under-claimed branches against your own roadmap
Point-of-care calibration, elastography scoring and edge model compression show lower filing density than the core diagnostic-device claim space — worth a direct comparison against any feature roadmap before committing engineering time.
Explore white space in EurekaWatch whether leader pullback is a pause or a shift to trade secrecy
Synchronized declines across Philips, GE Healthcare and Siemens Healthineers could reflect a maturing claim space or a move toward protecting AI model details as trade secrets rather than patents — worth monitoring over the next filing cycle.
Track assignee momentum in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
Philips is the most active single filer in recent years, reinforced by close coordination with its affiliated entity Philips Image Guided Therapy, which co-assigns filings with it more often than any other pair in this dataset. GE Healthcare and Siemens Healthineers follow at lower volume. All three, however, show significant year-on-year declines in the latest filing year, so current leadership in cumulative volume does not necessarily predict near-term filing direction.
No — filing peaked at 149 families in 2019 and has settled into a lower band since, with the 2022 midpoint at 136 and a further decline into the most recent partial year. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the final year's count is understated, but the multi-year plateau predates that lag effect and reflects a genuine slowdown rather than a data artefact.
The core diagnostic-device claims sit in A61B, which covers nearly the entire corpus, but the AI-specific differentiation shows up in secondary classes: G06T for image processing, G16H for healthcare informatics, and G06N for the underlying AI computing models. Radar and sonar positioning claims under G01S also appear, reflecting the transducer and beamforming side of ultrasound hardware.
Lower filing density shows up in point-of-care handheld probe AI calibration, real-time elastography lesion scoring, multi-modal ultrasound-CT fusion inference, federated learning across scanner fleets, and edge-deployed model compression for probes. These sit adjacent to the dense core claim space rather than outside the field, so a freedom-to-operate check before filing is still advisable.
The data shows a synchronized pullback: Philips down 64% year-on-year, GE Healthcare down 82%, and Siemens Healthineers down 80% in the latest measured year. A decline across multiple unrelated leaders at once is more consistent with a plateaued or saturated claim space than with any single company's internal strategy change, though it could also reflect a shift toward protecting AI model details as trade secrets rather than through patents.
Research Medical Ultrasound Imaging AI and Machine Learning in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole medical ultrasound imaging ai and machine learning 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.