Optical Frequency Comb Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing has already peaked and cooled. Activity crested at four families in 2021 and has not returned to that level since, with the midpoint year showing zero filings — a flat-to-declining curve rather than a growth story.
- Lasers, not networking, carry the claims. H01S (lasers & stimulated emission) covers 26 of 30 families and G02F (optical control & modulation) covers 16 — reliability engineering here is being claimed as laser and modulator hardware, not as a systems layer.
- No single assignee controls the space. Co-assignee pairings are rare (six pairs across the whole set) and recent-year momentum is flat across every named filer, pointing to a field of small, independent efforts rather than a consolidated leader.
Filing growth compares 2021 (4 records) with 2024 (2) — 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 patent set actually covers
This landscape isolates patents at the intersection of optical frequency comb technology and explicit reliability language — long-term stability, environmental robustness, self-referencing stability, or comb reliability — filtered to laser and optical-modulation IPC classes. That combination is narrow by design: it excludes the much larger body of general frequency-comb generation art and keeps only the subset where durability or stability is claimed as the point of the invention. The result is a 30-family corpus spanning 2015 through the 2026 cut-off.
Filing offices skew heavily toward the United States, with PCT, Chinese and European filings making up a much smaller share. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent years in any trend line will understate real filing activity — treat the last one to two years as provisional, not as evidence of a slowdown by itself.
Filing trend and technology composition
The filing curve and IPC mix together show a technology area that grew in bursts rather than steadily, and that sits almost entirely inside laser-source and modulation hardware rather than downstream signal-processing or measurement claims.
A peak-and-cool pattern, not sustained growth
Filings were absent in 2017, rose to a peak of four families in 2021, then fell back to zero at the 2022 midpoint. That shape is consistent with a small number of research groups filing around specific breakthroughs (e.g. microresonator combs) rather than an industry building a sustained pipeline.
Concentrated in laser and modulator hardware
H01S (lasers & stimulated emission) appears in 26 of 30 records and G02F (optical control & modulation) in 16, making these two subclasses the backbone of the corpus. G04F (time-interval measuring), G01J (radiation measurement), G01S (positioning) and G02B (optical elements) each appear in only one to five records, marking them as adjacent but thinly claimed.
Shares are the percentage of the 30 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 Reliability and Durability with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about optical frequency comb reliability and durability and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records other filings build on
Optical frequency comb generator with opto-electronic oscillator and tunable filter
A system is provided herein. The system includes an electro-optic modulated (EOM) comb generator including an opto-electronic oscillator (OEO) loop to modulate a continuous-wave seed source and form an EOM comb, a saturable absorber to perform non-linear pulse shaping of the EOM comb, and a tunable filter having resonances matching a frequency spacing of the EOM comb. The tunable filter filters the EOM comb from the saturable absorber to provide an output EOM comb.Filed by University of Central Florida Research Foundation and published 2025-09-25, this record illustrates the current design pattern: pairing an opto-electronic oscillator loop with a saturable absorber and a matched tunable filter to stabilise comb spacing rather than relying on passive mode-locking alone.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20040213302A1 | Pulsed laser sources | 232 |
| 2 | US7190705B2 | Pulsed laser sources | 135 |
| 3 | US7649915B2 | Pulsed laser sources | 56 |
| 4 | WO2020076402A1 | Compact microresonator frequency comb | 50 |
| 5 | US20060198398A1 | Pulsed laser sources | 33 |
| 6 | US20210294180A1 | Compact microresonator frequency comb | 26 |
| 7 | US20100195677A1 | Pulsed laser sources | 23 |
| 8 | US8208196B2 | Pulsed laser sources | 19 |
| 9 | US20140233089A1 | Pulsed laser sources | 18 |
| 10 | EP2629381A1 | Precision photonic oscillator and method for generating an ultra-stable frequency reference using a two-photo… | 17 |
Citation counts reward older, foundational filings inside this searched corpus — read them as markers of influence on the field, not as a ranking of current commercial relevance. The three most-cited records here are all pulsed-laser-source patents, underscoring how much of the reliability conversation still traces back to source-laser design rather than to referencing or environmental hardening claims.
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 the trend, the IPC mix and the citation table are read together: the field cooled after a single peak year, the claim space is overwhelmingly hardware-side, and influence is still anchored to older pulsed-laser art.
The growth phase has already passed
With zero filings at the 2022 midpoint and no year since matching the 2021 peak, this is not an area where a new entrant is racing a rising curve. It is a mature, low-volume niche where individual filings can still carry outsized weight.
Reliability is claimed as laser hardware
The dominant claim strategy is to build stability into the laser source or modulator itself — saturable absorbers, OEO loops, tunable filters — rather than into downstream referencing electronics or measurement protocols.
US filing dominates; other jurisdictions are thin
PCT, Chinese and European receiving offices each account for a small handful of records. Teams evaluating freedom to operate outside the US should not assume equivalent claim density there.
No consolidated leader has emerged
Co-filing is rare and recent-year momentum is flat across every named assignee in the dataset, including university and government-linked filers. This looks like a field of independent research efforts rather than one shaped by a dominant commercial player.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to optical frequency comb reliability and durability, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the room still is
The assignee base mixes US research-linked entities, European university-institute pairings, and a cluster of Chinese research institutes — none showing sustained recent-year filing momentum in this dataset.
Flat momentum across the board
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including university labs and government-linked filers, shows zero filings in the latest year, several with a -100% year-on-year drop. That is consistent with the corpus-wide peak-and-cool pattern rather than any single filer losing ground.
Cross-institution filing is the exception, not the rule
The strongest pairing links a Belgian university with a microelectronics research centre; the others link a US university with a satellite campus and a federal health agency. These look like grant-funded joint filings rather than a commercial partnership network.
A Chinese research cluster is present but not yet dominant
Several Chinese university and national-laboratory filers appear in the dataset, but none register meaningful recent-year volume individually. This is worth monitoring rather than treating as an established leadership position.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| IMRA America, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Raytheon Company | 0 | — |
| Ghent University | 0 | — |
| Interuniversity Microelectronics Centre (IMEC) | 0 | — |
| University of Maryland | 0 | — |
| Queen's College, Dublin (Royal College of Science / Queen's University affiliate) | 0 | -100% |
| University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) | 0 | — |
| Government of the United States, as represented by the Secretary of Health and Human Services | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is filing strategy, freedom-to-operate, or technology scouting.
Stress-test freedom to operate against the pulsed-laser cluster
The most-cited records are all pulsed-laser-source patents. Any new filing that touches pulse shaping or seed-source modulation should be checked against this cluster before drafting claims.
Explore the citation network in EurekaModel the under-claimed branches as first-filer opportunities
Self-referencing electronics and environmental testing protocols show thin IPC coverage relative to the laser-hardware core. A well-drafted claim there faces less prior art density.
Map white space in EurekaTrack the flat-momentum assignees for re-entry signals
Every named assignee shows zero latest-year filings. A single new filing from any of them would be a meaningful change against this flat baseline and worth an alert.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
This landscape is deliberately narrow: it only includes filings that combine frequency-comb or microcomb terminology with explicit reliability language such as long-term stability, environmental robustness, self-referencing stability, or comb reliability, restricted to laser and optical-modulation IPC classes. The broader field of frequency comb generation, without a stability or durability claim, is much larger and sits outside this 30-family set. Treat this dataset as the reliability-specific slice of a bigger technology area, not as the whole field.
The trend data shows a peak of four families in 2021 followed by zero filings at the 2022 midpoint, which reads as a cooling rather than sustained growth. However, publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any dataset will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. The honest read is that the field has passed an early filing burst and has not yet shown a second wave, but the latest years are not yet fully resolved.
No single assignee dominates this corpus. Recent-year momentum figures show zero latest-year filings across every named assignee tracked, including university labs, a defense contractor, and government-linked research bodies, and co-assignee pairings are limited to just six pairs across the full 30-family set. This points to a field driven by scattered, largely independent research efforts rather than one shaped by a consolidated commercial leader.
The claim space is concentrated in laser and modulator hardware: H01S (lasers and stimulated emission) covers 26 of 30 records and G02F (optical control and modulation) covers 16, often overlapping in the same filing. Representative approaches include opto-electronic oscillator loops, saturable absorbers for pulse shaping, and tunable filters matched to comb spacing — reliability is being engineered into the source itself rather than added as separate stabilisation electronics. Adjacent areas like timing measurement (G04F) and radiation measurement (G01J) appear only a handful of times each.
The thinnest IPC subclasses relative to the laser-hardware core are G04F (time-interval measuring), G01J (radiation and light measurement), G01S (positioning) and G02B (optical elements), each with five or fewer records. Specific sub-areas worth examining include self-referencing electronics for comb stabilisation, environmental robustness test protocols, and long-term drift compensation algorithms, none of which show dense claim coverage in this dataset. A first filer in these branches would face less prior-art crowding than in the core pulsed-laser cluster.
Research Optical Frequency Comb Reliability and Durability in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole optical frequency comb reliability and durability 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.