Optical Frequency Comb Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- A small, concentrated field. 26 patent families total, with filing activity peaking at 6 in 2022 and no clear upward trend since — this is a niche still being staked out, not a crowded one.
- Integrated lithium niobate dominates the cited core. The most-cited records in this set all trace back to the same integrated lithium niobate microring approach, filed by Harvard and related academic assignees.
- Filing is university-led, not corporate-led. Co-assignee pairs cluster around research institutions rather than commercial photonics firms, meaning licensing conversations start in tech-transfer offices, not corporate BD.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families at the intersection of optical frequency comb generation and explicit design optimization claims — dispersion engineering, resonator design optimization, comb bandwidth optimization and pump-cavity optimization — filtered to IPC classes covering optical modulation, computational design tools and waveguide structures. It is a narrow cut: 26 families worldwide across roughly a decade of filing activity, concentrated in the years around 2020-2022.
Because the search string requires optimization language directly in the title or claims, this set captures the subset of comb patents that go beyond generating a comb to actively engineering its dispersion, bandwidth or pump coupling. That distinction matters for freedom-to-operate work: a broader comb-generation patent may not read on a specific dispersion-engineering claim, and vice versa.
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 26-family set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend is flat, not rising
Filings were at zero in 2017, rose to a peak of 6 in 2022, and the midpoint-to-peak comparison shows no sustained growth — this looks like a technology still in an exploratory phase rather than one scaling toward commercial saturation. The most recent year is necessarily undercounted, since publication lags filing by around 18 months.
Claims sit almost entirely in optical modulation and lasers
G02F (optical control and modulation) covers 25 of the 26 records, with H01S (lasers and stimulated emission) a distant second at 10. G02B (optical elements and systems), G01J (radiation measurement), G06F and G06N appear only once or a handful of times each, which is the clearest signal in this dataset that computational and AI-assisted design approaches to comb optimization are barely claimed yet.
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 Optical Frequency Comb Design Optimization with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about optical frequency comb design optimization and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records anchor the field
Optical frequency comb generation in integrated lithium niobate devices
Kerr and electro-optic frequency comb generation in integrated lithium niobate devices is provided. In various embodiments, a microring resonator comprising lithium niobate is disposed on a thermal oxide substrate. The microring resonator has inner and outer edges. Electrodes are positioned along the inner and outer edges of the microring resonator. The electrodes are adapted to modulate the refractive index of the microring. A pump laser is optically coupled to the microring resonator. The microring resonator is adapted to emit an electro-optical frequency comb when receiving a pump mode from the pump laser and when the electrodes are driven at a frequency equal to a free-spectral-range of the resonator.Filed by Harvard; the same core disclosure recurs across a WO application and a granted US patent in this set, indicating a deliberate multi-jurisdiction filing strategy around one invention.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20210096444A1 | Optical frequency comb generation in integrated lithium niobate devices | 29 |
| 2 | US20210026223A1 | Fully Integrated Chip Platform For Electrically Pumped Frequency Comb Generation | 17 |
| 3 | WO2019213137A1 | Optical frequency comb generation in integrated lithium niobate devices | 14 |
| 4 | US11537026B2 | Optical frequency comb generation in integrated lithium niobate devices | 11 |
| 5 | US20200142277A1 | Optical parametric oscillator for generating an optical frequency comb | 5 |
| 6 | CN119167788A | 一种超平坦孤子微腔光梳的色散工程方法 | 3 |
| 7 | US10969276B2 | Dual-frequency-comb spectrometer and spectroscopy method for spectroscopic investigation of a sample | 3 |
| 8 | US11506953B2 | Downhole telemetry system using frequency combs | 2 |
| 9 | US11809061B2 | Optical frequency comb generation in integrated lithium niobate devices | 1 |
Citation counts reward older filings within a searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a ranking of current commercial relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (9 of 9 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 stand out once the counts are read against each other rather than in isolation.
This is a small, specialist corpus
26 families across a decade means individual filings carry outsized weight in this space. A single well-drafted application on an under-claimed sub-branch can establish a meaningful position without needing to displace an incumbent.
Momentum has not compounded past its peak
The trend rises to 6 filings in 2022 and does not sustain past that midpoint, which reads as flat-to-declining rather than an emerging wave. Recent-year momentum tables for the leading assignees confirm this: none show growth in the latest year.
Computational design tools are almost entirely absent
Optical control and modulation claims dominate; only one family each touches G06F (digital data processing) or G06N (AI-based computing). Algorithmic or ML-assisted dispersion-engineering claims are essentially unclaimed territory in this set.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to optical frequency comb design optimization, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the collaboration lines run
Filing in this landscape is led by academic assignees, with collaboration concentrated in a handful of repeat co-filing pairs rather than spread across the corpus.
Harvard and Stanford anchor the cited core
The Harvard-Stanford pairing is the strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset, consistent with the lithium niobate microring work that dominates the most-cited records.
No assignee is currently accelerating
Every leading assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including Harvard, Stanford, Caltech and the Torres Co / Helgason pairing, shows zero filings in the latest year. This is a field with an established cited core and no visible new push behind it yet.
Filing is US-centred with a thin international spread
The United States receives the largest share of filings, with Europe, China and WIPO/PCT each taking smaller portions. That concentration suggests freedom-to-operate risk is currently sharpest in the US, with more room to file cleanly in other jurisdictions.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| President and Fellows of Harvard College | 0 | — |
| The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University | 0 | — |
| California Institute of Technology (Caltech) | 0 | — |
| TORRES CO VICTOR | 0 | — |
| BJARKI HELGASON OSKAR | 0 | — |
| Inrete LLC | 0 | -100% |
| The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York | 0 | — |
| ILOOMINA AB | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing pattern here points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing or new filing.
Map claims against the lithium niobate core
Before filing near integrated lithium niobate microring designs, check claim scope against the Harvard/Stanford cited cluster and its WO and granted-US counterparts directly, since they share a single underlying disclosure filed across jurisdictions.
Explore the citation network in EurekaWatch the computational design gap
With only one family each in G06F and G06N, ML-assisted dispersion or bandwidth optimization claims remain largely open. That is a narrow but currently low-risk filing window.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
This landscape identifies 26 patent families filed between 2015 and 2026 that combine optical frequency comb generation with explicit design-optimization claims such as dispersion engineering, resonator design optimization, comb bandwidth optimization or pump-cavity optimization. That is a small, specialist count compared to broader frequency-comb generation filings generally, because the search deliberately narrows to documents where optimization language appears directly in the title or claims. Filing peaked at 6 families in 2022 and has not sustained growth beyond that point, so the field remains compact rather than crowded.
Filing in this dataset is led by academic institutions rather than commercial photonics companies, with Harvard and Stanford forming the strongest co-assignee relationship at four joint filings. Caltech and a Torres Co/Helgason filing pair also appear among tracked assignees, but recent-year momentum data shows all of them at zero filings in the latest year, meaning none currently shows accelerating activity. This points to a field where the cited core was established a few years ago and has not yet attracted a clear new wave of corporate filers.
Dispersion engineering refers to deliberately shaping the group-velocity dispersion of a resonator or waveguide so that a pumped microring or cavity produces a stable, broadband frequency comb rather than an unstable or narrow one. It matters for patents because it is one of the few design-level levers, alongside pump-cavity coupling and bandwidth optimization, that separates a basic comb-generation claim from a claim on how to make that comb useful and manufacturable. In this dataset, dispersion-engineering language is one of the core search terms, and the IPC skew toward G02F (optical control and modulation) shows most of that engineering work is currently claimed at the device level rather than the computational-design level.
US20210096444A1, assigned to the President and Fellows of Harvard College, discloses a lithium-niobate microring resonator with electrodes along its inner and outer edges that modulate refractive index to generate an electro-optic frequency comb when driven at the resonator's free-spectral-range frequency. It is the most-cited record in this landscape at 29 citations, and closely related disclosures appear as a WO application and a separate granted US patent within the same 26-family set. Its centrality means most freedom-to-operate analysis in integrated lithium-niobate comb generation should start by mapping claims against this family and its counterparts.
The clearest gap sits in computational and AI-assisted design: only one family each falls into G06F (digital data processing) and G06N (AI-based computing), against 25 of 26 families in G02F (optical control and modulation). That imbalance suggests algorithmic approaches to dispersion profiling, bandwidth optimization or pump-cavity tuning are largely unclaimed relative to device-level approaches. A second, smaller opening is geographic: US filings outnumber every other receiving office, so equivalent claims filed cleanly in China, Europe or under PCT may face a thinner prior-art landscape than the same claim filed in the US.
Research Optical Frequency Comb Design Optimization in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole optical frequency comb design optimization 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.