Optical Transceiver Waveguide Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
A patent landscape review of optical transceiver waveguide technology: filing trends, leading assignees, IPC composition, most-cited records and open claim space, based on 37 patent families filed 2015-2026.
Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 37 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families at the intersection of optical transceivers, optical modules and co-packaged optics with silicon photonics, integrated and low-loss waveguide claims, filtered to the core waveguide-optics IPC codes (G02B6/12, G02B6/122, G02B6/136). It captures 37 published families filed between 2015 and 2026, with the most recent year necessarily undercounted because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
The picture is one of a technically narrow, IPC-concentrated field rather than a fast-growing one. Filing activity peaked in 2018 and has not recovered since, while the six receiving offices are spread fairly evenly rather than clustered around one jurisdiction — a pattern more consistent with a mature niche than an emerging battleground.
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 37-family dataset: filings by year, and how those families distribute across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings rose to a peak of 7 in 2018, fell back toward zero by the 2022 midpoint, and show no recovery through the partial 2026 count — a flat-to-declining curve rather than a growth one. Treat the final one to two years as undercounted given typical publication lag.
IPC subclass composition
Every family carries a G02B optical-elements classification; the next-heaviest overlaps are H04B transmission (17) and H01S lasers (14), with smaller pockets in G01J radiation measurement, H01L semiconductor devices and H04J multiplex communication. G02F modulation and B23P metalworking appear only marginally, marking them as thin, largely unclaimed adjacencies.
Shares are the percentage of the 37 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Optical Transceiver Optical Waveguide with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about optical transceiver optical waveguide and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this space
US8231284B2 — Ultra-high bandwidth, multiple-channel full-duplex, single-chip CMOS optical transceiver
A parallel optical module combining transmit and receive functions on a single-chip CMOS transceiver: sixteen 10-Gb/s channels for a 160-Gb/s bidirectional aggregate rate, with flip-chip VCSEL and photodiode arrays integrated onto the CMOS IC substrate and collimating lenses built into the backside of that substrate.Filed by International Business Machines Corporation; a foundational single-chip CMOS optical transceiver architecture that later, more-cited filings continue to reference.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5732173A | Microreplicated optical module | 161 |
| 2 | US20120163811A1 | Ultra-high bandwidth, multiple-channel full-duplex, single-chip CMOS optical transceiver | 97 |
| 3 | US8231284B2 | Ultra-high bandwidth, multiple-channel full-duplex, single-chip CMOS optical transceiver | 43 |
| 4 | JP2019121691A | Integrated laser light source and optical transceiver using the same | 23 |
| 5 | US20090214158A1 | Optical Printed Circuit Board and An Optical Module Connected to the Optical Printed Circuit Board | 19 |
| 6 | US6498666B1 | Integrated optical transceiver | 18 |
| 7 | WO1999034485A1 | An integrated optical transceiver | 16 |
| 8 | US10684415B1 | Optical transceiver | 12 |
| 9 | US20200209704A1 | Method and system for an all-optical wafer acceptance test | 11 |
| 10 | EP1253447A2 | Optical integrated waveguide device, optical transceiver and other optical apparatuses using the optical devi… | 11 |
Citation counts are drawn from a searched corpus and skew toward older filings; read 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.
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 from the filing trend, IPC composition and citation pattern that matter for where to file next.
The growth window has already closed
A peak of 7 families in 2018 followed by a decline to zero at the 2022 midpoint indicates this claim space was staked out early and has not attracted a second wave of filers. New entrants are filing into settled prior art rather than an open field.
Every family competes on the same optical-elements ground
With G02B present in all 37 records and H04B and H01S the next-densest overlaps, the contested claim territory is specifically optical-element architecture combined with transmission and laser-source subject matter — not the broader photonics category.
Influence sits with early, foundational filings
The most-cited record predates the 2015-2026 filing window and the next two most-cited both describe single-chip CMOS transceiver architecture, suggesting the field's foundational architecture claims were set early and later filings build narrower improvements on top.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to optical transceiver optical waveguide, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a settled but unevenly claimed field. Two directions are worth pursuing before committing a filing strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on the under-claimed adjacencies
Electro-optic modulation and multiplex-channel waveguide combining show only marginal IPC coverage in this set. That thinness could mean open ground, or it could mean the relevant claims sit in adjacent search categories not captured here — worth confirming before filing.
Explore white space in EurekaMap the foundational CMOS transceiver claims before drafting around them
The most-cited records in this set describe single-chip CMOS optical transceiver architecture predating the 2015 window. Any new filing on transceiver-waveguide integration should be checked against those claims specifically, not just the recent filing set.
Check claim scope in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
This landscape identifies 37 published patent families filed between 2015 and 2026 that combine optical transceiver, optical module or co-packaged optics claims with silicon photonics or integrated waveguide subject matter under the core G02B6/12-family IPC codes. That is a small, tightly-defined dataset rather than a broad category count, since it is filtered to a specific technical intersection. Broader searches on optical transceivers alone, or on waveguides alone, would return substantially more records.
No — filing peaked at 7 families in 2018 and had fallen back to zero by the 2022 midpoint, with no recovery through the partial 2026 count. That flat-to-declining pattern suggests the core claim space was staked out in the late 2010s and has not attracted a renewed wave of filers since. The most recent one to two years should still be read cautiously, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
Assignee activity in this dataset is dispersed rather than concentrated behind one or two dominant filers; the strongest linkages are co-filing pairs between a Korean university technology-transfer organisation and individually named inventors. Corporate assignees named in the broader dataset include IBM, Huawei, NTT, Fujitsu and 3M, among others, but none shows filing activity in the most recent tracked year. This points to a field with several historical contributors rather than one company setting the pace today.
US8231284B2 describes a single-chip CMOS optical transceiver combining sixteen 10-Gb/s transmit and receive channels, with flip-chip VCSEL and photodiode arrays and backside-integrated collimating lenses, for a 160-Gb/s bidirectional aggregate rate. It is among the most-cited records in this landscape, filed by International Business Machines Corporation, and its architecture — combined transmit/receive on one CMOS die with integrated optics — recurs as a reference point in later, more narrowly-scoped filings. Anyone drafting claims around single-chip transceiver integration should check this filing's scope specifically.
The IPC composition shows G02F electro-optic modulation and B23P metalworking as only marginally represented alongside the dominant G02B optical-elements classification, which marks them as thin relative to the core waveguide claims. Waveguide-to-PCB optical coupling and multiplex-channel waveguide combining under H04J also show comparatively light coverage. These pockets deserve a freedom-to-operate check rather than an assumption of openness, since thin coverage in this specific search string can also mean the relevant claims are classified elsewhere.
Research Optical Transceiver Optical Waveguide in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole optical transceiver optical waveguide 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.