Piezoresistive MEMS Pressure Sensor Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- 26.7% sits with five companies. The top 5 combined account for 356 of 1,334 records in scope — concentrated enough that a new entrant's freedom-to-operate check should start there, not with the long tail.
- Filings peaked in 2018 at 87, then eased. The 2021→2024 span shows a -21% move (29 to 23), though 2025-2026 counts are still filling in as publication catches up with filing.
- G01L and B81B lead class coverage. Force/pressure measurement (34.7%) and MEMS microstructure claims (31.9%) dominate, while audio-transducer overlap (H04R, 7.7%) marks a smaller but real adjacent claim zone.
Filing growth compares 2021 (29 records) with 2024 (23) — 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 1,334 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Piezoresistive MEMS pressure sensors sit at the intersection of mechanical microstructure design and semiconductor process integration. This landscape covers 1,334 records published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine piezoresistive or micromachined pressure-sensing claims with MEMS or NEMS device claims. The scope captures both the sensing element — diaphragm, cavity, piezoresistor placement — and the device-level integration that turns a die into a packaged sensor.
Filing activity clusters around force and pressure measurement claims (G01L) and MEMS microstructure claims (B81B), with a meaningful secondary presence in semiconductor device claims (H01L) and diagnostic/surgical applications (A61B). The receiving-office mix is dominated by the United States, with Europe, WIPO/PCT, and Germany forming the next tier — a pattern consistent with a technology whose commercial centre of gravity has been US- and EU-anchored.
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 1,334-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, the class shares below sum to more than 100% of the record total.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings ran from 65 in 2017 to a peak of 87 in 2018, then eased; the 2021-to-2024 window shows a -21% move (29 to 23). The final one to two years in any patent trend are always undercounted at the point of publication, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months — so treat 2025 and 2026 as still filling in, not as a genuine drop-off.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G01L (force & pressure measurement) and B81B (MEMS microstructural devices) are the two largest classes, present in 34.7% and 31.9% of records respectively. B81C (MEMS manufacturing, 26.5%) and H01L (semiconductor devices, 15.8%) follow, with A61B (diagnosis & surgery, 12.1%) and H04R (audio transducers, 7.7%) marking smaller but distinct application overlaps.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,334 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on MEMS & NEMS — Piezoresistive MEMS Pressure Sensors Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about mems & nems — piezoresistive mems pressure sensors patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited records
Flexible Disposable MEMS Pressure Sensor — Robert Bosch GmbH
A MEMS device, e.g., a flexible MEMS pressure sensor, is formed by disposing a sacrificial layer, such as photoresist, on a substrate. A first flexible support layer is disposed on the substrate, and a first conductive layer is disposed over a portion of the first support layer. A liquid or gel separator, e.g., silicone oil, is disposed on an internal region of the first conductive layer. A second flexible support layer encapsulates the first conductive layer and the separator. A second conductive layer disposed over the second support layer at least partially overlaps the first conductive layer and forms a parallel plate capacitor.Filed by Robert Bosch GmbH, published 2017-12-21. Notable for building the sensing stack from flexible support layers rather than a rigid silicon diaphragm, which shifts the claim scope toward materials and layer sequencing rather than pure microstructure geometry.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050154494A1 | Integrated building environment data system | 609 |
| 2 | US20140270271A1 | MEMS Acoustic Transducer, MEMS Microphone, MEMS Microspeaker, Array of Speakers and Method for Manufacturing … | 303 |
| 3 | US6667725B1 | Radio frequency telemetry system for sensors and actuators | 254 |
| 4 | US8812154B2 | Autonomous inspection and maintenance | 217 |
| 5 | US7426873B1 | Micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS) pressure sensor for footwear | 200 |
| 6 | US6401545B1 | Micro electro-mechanical system sensor with selective encapsulation and method therefor | 198 |
| 7 | US20150197419A1 | MEMS devices and methods for forming same | 191 |
| 8 | US20100235037A1 | Autonomous Inspection and Maintenance | 165 |
| 9 | US20160128389A1 | MEMS-based sensor for an aerosol delivery device | 159 |
| 10 | US20130161702A1 | Integrated MEMS device | 152 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside the corpus — read them as a signal of influence on the field, not as a marker of current commercial 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 read-throughs of the dataset that matter more for strategy than the raw counts themselves.
The top of the field is genuinely concentrated
Five companies account for 356 of the 1,334 records in scope, and the top 10 combined reach 38.5% (514 records). That leaves a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants below tenth place — useful context for anyone assuming this is a fragmented field.
Filing growth has cooled, not collapsed
The comparable-year window shows filings moving from 29 in 2021 to 23 in 2024, a -21% change. That is a real deceleration in a mature claim space, not a sign the technology is being abandoned — occupied claim space simply means new entrants need a sharper angle.
Pressure-sensing claims rarely stand alone
Nearly a third of records pair G01L pressure-measurement claims with B81B MEMS-microstructure claims, and over a quarter also touch B81C manufacturing claims. A filing strategy that only reads the pressure-sensing claim and ignores the microstructure and process claims sitting alongside it will miss real prior art.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to mems & nems — piezoresistive mems pressure sensors patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The competitive set
The ranked leader sits well ahead of the field at 98 records, with fifth place at 37 and tenth place at 27 — a steep drop-off that confirms the concentration seen in the top-5 and top-10 shares. Recent-year momentum data shows several previously active filers flat or down to zero in the latest year, consistent with the broader 2021-2024 cooling.
A single filer well ahead of the pack
The leading assignee's record count is more than double the fifth-place company's 37, marking a clear gap between the top filer and everyone else in the ranked set.
A workable second tier, then a long tail
Between fifth place (37) and tenth place (27) the drop is gradual, suggesting a stable group of established filers below the leader — before volume falls off sharply further down the ranking.
Momentum has stalled for multiple established filers
Several assignees that have filed historically show zero or negative year-on-year movement in the latest tracked year, including outright -100% YoY drops — a signal that active competitive pressure at the frontier may be shifting to filers not yet visible in the ranked set.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (TSMC) | 1 | 0% |
| Silverbrook Research Pty Ltd | 0 | — |
| Infineon Technologies AG | 0 | -100% |
| Rosemount Aerospace Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. | 0 | — |
| The Boeing Company | 0 | — |
| RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany) | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
A patent count is a starting point, not a conclusion. These next steps narrow from the field-level view to a specific filing or design decision.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top 5
With 26.7% of records held by five companies, any new filing in the core G01L/B81B claim space should start its prior-art check there before moving to the long tail.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaMap the white space branches
Under-claimed overlaps like audio-transducer integration or flexible-substrate sensing carry thinner claim density than the core pressure-measurement class — worth a closer look before assuming the space is closed.
Explore white space with EurekaWatch momentum, not just headcount
Several established filers show flat or negative year-on-year activity in the latest tracked year; pairing that with newer entrants not yet visible in the ranked set gives a fuller competitive picture.
Track assignee momentum in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee leads the ranked set with 98 records, well ahead of the fifth-place company at 37 and the tenth-place company at 27. The top 5 companies combined hold 356 of the 1,334 records in scope, or 26.7% of the field, and the top 10 combined reach 38.5%. Below that tenth position the ranking thins into a long tail of companies with far fewer filings each, so the practical competitive set to watch closely is smaller than the full 100-company ranking suggests.
Filings peaked in 2018 at 87 and the most recent complete comparison window, 2021 to 2024, shows a -21% change from 29 to 23 filings. That reads as a genuine cooling in a claim space that has been active for a decade, not as abandonment of the technology. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so those years should not be read as confirming a further decline.
G01L (force and pressure measurement) covers 34.7% of the 1,334 records and B81B (MEMS microstructural devices) covers 31.9%, making these the two dominant classes. B81C (MEMS manufacturing, 26.5%) and H01L (semiconductor devices, 15.8%) are the next most common, with A61B (diagnosis and surgery, 12.1%) and H04R (audio transducers, 7.7%) marking smaller application-specific overlaps. Because a single record can carry multiple classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be treated as mutually exclusive categories.
The smaller IPC shares point to under-claimed territory: audio-transducer integration (H04R at 7.7%), diagnostic/surgical application claims (A61B at 12.1%), and flexible or disposable substrate designs like the Bosch representative record all carry thinner claim density than the core G01L/B81B space. This does not mean these areas are unclaimed, but the density is lower than in the dominant pressure-measurement and microstructure classes, which is where a differentiated first claim is more likely to clear prior art cleanly.
The United States leads with 773 filings in this dataset, followed by Europe via the EPO at 199 and the WIPO/PCT route at 94. Germany (59) and Austria (50) follow, with Australia at 33. This distribution suggests the commercial and litigation centre of gravity for this technology has been concentrated in the US and Europe, which is worth factoring into where a defensive or offensive filing programme should prioritise examination.
Research MEMS & NEMS — Piezoresistive MEMS Pressure Sensors Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole mems & nems — piezoresistive mems pressure sensors 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.