Nociception & Analgesia Monitoring Patents: Leaders, Trends 2026
- Filing peaked in 2021 at 11 records and fell to zero by 2024 — a complete three-year swing, not a slowdown still in progress.
- One assignee holds 13 of the 26 records in scope while the remaining ranked leaders each hold a handful, down to a single filing at tenth place.
- A61B carries 92.3% of records and G16H 42.3% showing the field is framed as a diagnostic-and-informatics problem more than a therapy-delivery one.
Filing growth compares 2021 (11 records) with 2024 (0) — 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.
What this landscape covers
Nociception and analgesia monitoring patents describe devices and software that infer a patient’s pain or analgesic state from physiological signals — heart rate variability, skin conductance, pupillometry — rather than relying on a clinician’s subjective read during surgery or sedation. The search underlying this page pairs those signal sources against records that name nociception monitoring or an analgesia index directly, so the scope is the intersection of the two, not either alone.
The dataset covers 26 published records with priority activity concentrated in a narrow multi-year window. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so any apparent drop-off in the most recent one to two years reflects reporting lag rather than an actual stop in R&D activity.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 26-record set: how filing activity moved year over year, and which technical classes those records sit in.
Filing trend: a single peak, then a fast fall
Filing rose to a peak of 11 records in 2021, then declined to 0 by 2024 — a documented -100% swing across that three-year span. Because 2024 is the most recent year that can be treated as complete, that fall is the reliable read; 2025 and later are still filling in and should not be read as continued decline.
IPC composition: diagnostics and informatics dominate
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) appears in 92.3% of the 26 records and G16H (healthcare informatics) in 42.3%, meaning most filings frame nociception monitoring as a measurement-and-software problem. A61M (body-fluid devices) at 15.4% and A61N (electrotherapy) at just 3.8% show that closed-loop drug or energy delivery tied to a nociception signal is comparatively rare in the claim language filed to date.
Shares are the percentage of the 26 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Nociception and Analgesia Monitoring with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about nociception and analgesia monitoring and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in the set
Apparatus, system and method for pain monitoring
A nociception monitoring device including at least one sensor configured to sense at least three physiological parameters of a patient, and a computing unit configured to receive the at least three physiological parameters and to compute a nociception scale (NS) value, indicative of a nociception level of the patient, based on an analysis of the at least three physiological parameters and/or features derived therefrom.Filed by Medasense Biometrics; published 2018-11-01 as US20180310877A1, and its WIPO counterpart WO2017006313A2 sits among the most-cited records in this set.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20230157757A1 | Extended Intelligence for Pulmonary Procedures | 55 |
| 2 | US20180310877A1 | Apparatus, system and method for pain monitoring | 25 |
| 3 | WO2017006313A2 | Apparatus, system and method for pain monitoring | 10 |
| 4 | US12471996B2 | Extended intelligence for pulmonary procedures | 2 |
| 5 | US20220015696A1 | Nociception stimulus feedback control for drug titration during surgery | 2 |
| 6 | US12178602B2 | Nociception stimulus feedback control for drug titration during surgery | 1 |
| 7 | WO2017006313A3 | Apparatus, system and method for pain monitoring | 1 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate references — read them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (7 of 7 rows); 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 worth acting on rather than just noting.
One filer set the terms of this field
With the leader holding 13 of the 26 records in scope and the fifth-ranked assignee down to a single filing, this is a field defined early by one company's claim scope rather than by a broad competitive push. New entrants should map their claims against that leader's portfolio before assuming open ground.
The filing wave has already crested
The -100% swing from the 2021 peak to 2024 is a completed cycle, not a trend still playing out — treat any 2025-26 quiet as reporting lag, and treat the 2021 peak as the ceiling this field has demonstrated so far, not a floor to expect again automatically.
Diagnosis, not delivery, is where claims sit
Only 3.8% of records touch A61N (electrotherapy) and 15.4% touch A61M (fluid-delivery devices), against 92.3% in A61B and 42.3% in G16H. Most protected ground is in sensing and scoring a nociception state, leaving the therapeutic response side comparatively open.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to nociception and analgesia monitoring, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is active, and where the ground is soft
The ranked leaders in this dataset span a large medical device manufacturer, a device-focused biometrics specialist, and several individually named inventors filing in small, overlapping groups.
The dominant assignee by volume
The top-ranked assignee accounts for roughly half the records in this set, spanning both device and informatics classes. Its recent-year momentum shows 0 filings in the latest year, consistent with the field-wide fall from the 2021 peak rather than a company-specific retreat.
A device specialist with cited foundational claims
Medasense Biometrics' pain-monitoring apparatus and its WIPO counterpart are among the most-cited records in the set, indicating this specialist's early claim language is a frequent reference point for later filers working the same sensor-fusion approach.
A small network of individually named inventors
Several individually named inventors — including Seitz Zach, Seanez Ismael, Lombardi Lorenzo and Leuthardt Eric — appear together across multiple co-assignee pairs, pointing to a compact, collaborative filing group working outside the larger corporate assignees.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Covidien LP | 0 | — |
| Medasense Biometrics Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| GE Healthcare Finland Oy | 0 | — |
| Medtronic, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| SEITZ ZACH | 0 | -100% |
| SEANEZ ISMAEL | 0 | -100% |
| LOMBARDI LORENZO | 0 | -100% |
| LEUTHARDT ERIC | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this
The dataset points to a field with claim density concentrated in sensing and scoring, and comparatively open ground in the therapeutic-response side.
Map the leader's claim boundaries
Before filing in the sensing or informatics classes, work through the top assignee's granted claims to find where its scope actually ends rather than assuming the whole area is blocked.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTest the electrotherapy and delivery gap
A61N and A61M carry the thinnest coverage in this set; a claim tying a validated nociception index directly to a closed-loop delivery or stimulation mechanism sits on less prior art than a sensing claim alone.
Run a white space search in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
In this landscape, a record qualifies if it names nociception monitoring or an analgesia index directly and pairs that with at least one recognised physiological signal source, such as heart rate variability, skin conductance, or pupillometry. This narrows the scope to devices and software that infer a patient's pain or analgesic state from measurable signals, rather than any general pain-management patent. The 26 records in this set were identified on that basis across a coverage window from 2015 to mid-2026.
Filing activity peaked at 11 records in 2021 and had fallen to 0 by 2024, a documented -100% swing across that span. That drop should be read as a completed filing cycle rather than an industry retreat, since 2024 is the most recent year in this dataset that can be treated as complete. Filings from 2025 onward are still being published, so it is too early to say whether the field has genuinely gone quiet or is simply under-reported so far.
The ranking in this dataset covers 10 assignees, with the leader holding 13 of the 26 records in scope — roughly half the field by volume. Beyond that leader, holdings drop off quickly, with the fifth-ranked assignee holding just 1 record and the tenth also holding 1. A specialist device maker and a cluster of individually named co-filing inventors round out the rest of the ranked list.
The IPC composition points toward diagnostics and informatics rather than physical sensor hardware or therapy delivery. A61B (diagnosis & surgery) appears in 92.3% of the 26 records and G16H (healthcare informatics) in 42.3%, while A61M (body-fluid delivery devices) sits at 15.4% and A61N (electrotherapy) at just 3.8%. That pattern suggests most protected claim language covers how a nociception signal is measured and scored, not how a therapeutic response is delivered in reaction to it.
The thinnest coverage in this dataset sits in A61N (electrotherapy, 3.8% of records) and A61M (fluid delivery, 15.4%), compared with heavy coverage in A61B and G16H. That gap suggests closed-loop systems that tie a validated nociception index directly to a stimulation or drug-delivery mechanism are less crowded than sensing or scoring claims alone. Anyone evaluating a new filing here should still check the leading assignee's granted claims first, since that company holds roughly half the records in scope.
Research Nociception and Analgesia Monitoring in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole nociception and analgesia monitoring 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.