Book a demo

NIR Process Monitoring Calibration Model Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026

NIR Process Monitoring Calibration Model Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/nir-process-monitoring-calibration-model-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · NIR Process Monitoring
NIR process monitoring calibration model patents: who is filing and where the field is still open
  • 19.8% of all 514 records sit with the top five assignees combined — a leader well ahead of the field but no single-firm lock on the space.
  • Filings fell 32% from 2021 to 2024 (25 to 17), the last span the dataset treats as complete, after peaking at 45 filings in 2023.
  • G01J and A61B ride alongside core G01N filings at 18.7% and 16.7% of records respectively, showing optical hardware and clinical/diagnostic use are the dominant adjacent claim zones.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
514
Published Records
20%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-32%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (25 records) with 2024 (17) — 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 514 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview

What this patent set covers

This landscape covers patent filings at the intersection of near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy hardware and the calibration-model workflows that turn raw spectra into usable process measurements: reference sampling, calibration transfer between instruments, prediction-error control, validation-set design and model updating. The scope is bounded by G01N21/359, C12Q3/00 and G01N21/31, which keeps the set anchored to material analysis and testing rather than to spectroscopy hardware in general or to unrelated optical sensing.

The 514 records in scope run from 2015 through mid-2026, with filing activity concentrated in the receiving offices of the United States, Europe and the WIPO PCT route, and a secondary tier in Canada, Australia and Germany. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and should be read as a floor, not a ceiling.

Filing activity and technology composition, 2015-2026
  1. 1VIAVI SOLUTIONS INC(US)26
  2. 2CASCO PRODUCTS CORP20
  3. 3SENSYS MEDICAL INC20
  4. 4FLOORING TECH LTD19
  5. 5ZYOMED HLDG INC17
  6. 6WR GRACE & CO CONN16
  7. 7INNOVATIVE SCI TOOLS15
  8. 8INSTR METRICS INC11
  9. 9EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH10
  10. 10MAYTRONICS LTD9
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on NIR Process Monitoring Calibration Model covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
The Data

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 514-record set: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims once G01N material analysis is assumed as the baseline.

Filing trend, 2017-2026

Annual filings rose from 19 in 2017 to a peak of 45 in 2023, then declined to 17 by 2024 — a 32% drop over the 2021-2024 span the dataset treats as complete. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because of publication lag and should not be read as a slowdown.

Filing trend, 2017-2026013253850192017201820192020202120224520232024202582026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

Every record in scope carries a G01N classification by construction. Beyond that baseline, G01J (radiation and light measurement) and A61B (diagnosis and surgery) are the two largest adjacent classes, at 18.7% and 16.7% of the 514 records, followed by smaller but distinct clusters in digital data processing, enzyme/DNA measurement, AI-based computing, particle board sensing and computational chemistry — each in the 4.9%-7.4% range. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to more than 100%.

Technology composition by IPC subclassG01N · Material analysis & testing514100.0%G01J · Radiation & light measurement9618.7%A61B · Diagnosis & surgery8616.7%G06F · Electric digital data processi…387.4%C12Q · Measuring & testing involving …285.4%G06N · Computing based on AI models275.3%B27N · Particle/fibre board254.9%G16C · Computational chemistry254.9%Other25549.6%

Shares are the percentage of the 514 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on NIR Process Monitoring Calibration Model covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on NIR Process Monitoring Calibration Model with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about nir process monitoring calibration model and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key Patents

Representative and most-cited filings

Representative Filing
AU2002318275B22009-03-26

AU2002318275B2 — On-site analysis system with central processor and method of analysing

EUROFINS QTA, INC.

The filing describes a modular, message-based communication architecture for integrating multiple electronic devices with reduced customisation overhead. Application-specific software components are assembled onto a generic message-based framework, with queuing strategies and business rules accommodated within that framework and intelligent pre-validation applied to messages before they are acted on.Abstract condensed from the original filing for readability.

View full record
Most-cited records in this set
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US6280381B1Intelligent system for noninvasive blood analyte prediction955
2US5750994APositive correlation filter systems and methods of use thereof667
3US6788965B2Intelligent system for detecting errors and determining failure modes in noninvasive measurement of blood and…626
4US6990364B2Noninvasive measurement of glucose through the optical properties of tissue615
5US6675030B2Near infrared blood glucose monitoring system493
6US6512937B2Multi-tier method of developing localized calibration models for non-invasive blood analyte prediction345
7US6646264B1Methods and devices for analyzing agricultural products291
8US5717209ASystem for remote transmission of spectral information through communication optical fibers for real-time on-…185
9US20010021803A1Multi-tier method of developing localized calibration models for non-invasive blood analyte prediction180
10US9554738B1Spectroscopic tomography systems and methods for noninvasive detection and measurement of analytes using coll…178

Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial relevance.

Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on NIR Process Monitoring Calibration Model covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis

 
Where to run it
Fastest

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 →
For builders

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 →
Insights

What the numbers mean for a filing decision

Three findings that shape where a new filing is likely to land relative to existing claims, and how to read the citation and concentration data without over-reading it.

Concentration
19.8% of 514 records
top 5 assignees combined

A visible leader, not a lock-out

The leading assignee holds 26 records and the top five combined account for 19.8% of the 514 records in scope. That is enough to signal a dominant player worth tracking closely, but it leaves roughly four-fifths of the field held by others — this is not a space where one company's claims foreclose entry.

Ranking covers 100 assignees, by record count.
Filing momentum
-32% (2021 to 2024)
the last complete three-year span

Volume has cooled from its 2023 peak

Filings peaked at 45 in 2023 and the 2021-2024 window shows a 32% decline from 25 to 17. Because publication lag means 2025-2026 figures are still incomplete, this should be read as the field settling after a filing wave, not as an active retreat happening now.

Peak year: 2023 at 45 filings.
Claim adjacency
18.7% G01J · 16.7% A61B
share of 514 records

Optical hardware and clinical use are the real adjacent battlegrounds

Beyond the G01N baseline that defines the search, the largest secondary clusters sit in radiation/light measurement hardware (G01J) and diagnostic/surgical application (A61B), meaning calibration-model claims are frequently bundled with instrument design or clinical-use claims rather than filed as pure algorithm patents.

G06N (AI models) sits smaller at 5.3% of records.
Citation signal
955 citations
highest-cited record in the set

Influence is concentrated in early noninvasive-analyte filings

The most-cited records in this set are early noninvasive blood-analyte prediction patents, which have had the most time to accumulate citations. That makes them useful markers of foundational claim territory in optical analyte prediction, but a poor guide to which techniques are commercially active today.

Citation counts drawn from within this searched corpus.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to nir process monitoring calibration model, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on NIR Process Monitoring Calibration Model covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players

Who is filing, and where the gaps sit

The ranking covers 100 assignees by record count within this scope. A single leader separates from a long tail, and recent-year filing activity for several previously active names has dropped to zero, which is worth checking before assuming continued momentum.

Leader
26 records
highest single-assignee count

One clear leader, well ahead of fifth place

The top-ranked assignee holds 26 records against 17 for the fifth-placed assignee, a meaningful gap that marks out a genuine leader rather than a tie among several similarly sized filers.

Fifth place: 17 records; tenth place: 9 records.
Mid tier
9 records
tenth-place threshold

A fast drop-off after the top ten

Filing counts fall from 17 at fifth place to 9 at tenth, and the top ten combined make up 31.7% of the 514 records in scope — meaning the remaining 90 ranked assignees, plus unranked filers, divide up more than two-thirds of the field.

Top 10 combined: 163 records, 31.7% of scope.
Momentum
0 filings
latest-year count for several tracked assignees

Recent-year activity has gone quiet for multiple former filers

Several assignees that appear in the ranking, including one with a -100% year-on-year change, show zero filings in the latest year captured. That does not necessarily mean exit from the field given publication lag, but it is a prompt to check whether activity has shifted to a different filing entity or jurisdiction.

Recent-year momentum tracked per assignee.
🔍
Under-claimed sub-areas worth a closer look
Branches where filing density is comparatively thin relative to the core calibration-model claim space.
Calibration transfer across instrument batchesModel update triggers for drift correctionValidation-set design for narrow concentration rangesAI-based prediction-error estimationComputational-chemistry-assisted spectral modelling
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Viavi Solutions Inc.0
Sensys Medical, Inc.0
Casco Products Corp.0
Zyomed Holdings, Inc.0
Flooring Tech Ltd.0-100%
INNOVATIVE SCI TOOLS0
Instrumentation Metrics, Inc.0
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn.0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on NIR Process Monitoring Calibration Model covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next

Where to take this analysis

The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, competitive tracking or identifying open claim territory.

Map claims against the leading assignee's portfolio

With 26 records held by the top filer, a claim-by-claim comparison against that portfolio is the fastest way to spot where a new filing would sit too close for comfort.

Explore in Eureka

Check the under-claimed branches before drafting

Calibration transfer, model-update triggers and narrow concentration-range validation show thinner filing density than the core G01N claim space — worth testing before committing a filing strategy.

Run a white space search in Eureka

Verify recent-year momentum per assignee

Several tracked assignees show zero filings in the latest year; confirming whether that reflects genuine exit or a shift to a different entity changes how a competitive watch list should be built.

Track assignees in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on NIR Process Monitoring Calibration Model covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about this landscape

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on NIR Process Monitoring Calibration Model covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research NIR Process Monitoring Calibration Model in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole nir process monitoring calibration model corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.