Patient Monitoring Systems Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- Concentration is real but not total. the top 5 assignees hold 57.0% of all 128 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 84.4% — a steep drop after a small leading group.
- Filing activity has cooled since 2017. the peak year of 13 filings has given way to a flat-to-declining trend through the 2022 midpoint of 6, with 2026 data still incomplete.
- Claims cluster tightly around core diagnosis. A61B accounts for 89.1% of the 128 records, while informatics-adjacent classes like G16H (25.8%) and G06F (23.4%) trail well behind.
What the patent record shows for patient monitoring systems
Patient monitoring systems sit at the intersection of physiological sensing, signal processing and clinical workflow — a field where arrhythmia detection, alarm management and wireless telemetry have generated a steady but narrowing stream of filings. The 128 records in scope span 2015 through the middle of 2026, filed predominantly through the United States receiving office, with smaller volumes routed through Europe, the WIPO PCT system, Australia, Finland and the United Kingdom.
The filing curve peaked in 2017 and has since flattened, which reads less as market exhaustion and more as consolidation: a small group of established device makers continues to file steadily while the broader field of new entrants has thinned. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent years in this trend understate actual filing activity.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 128-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how those records distribute across IPC subclasses.
A 2017 peak followed by a plateau
Filings rose to 13 in 2017, the high point of the period, then settled toward a midpoint of 6 in 2022. The trend is flat-to-declining rather than growing, and the partial 2026 figure of 1 should be read as an undercount given typical publication lag.
Diagnosis and surgery claims dominate
A61B covers 89.1% of the 128 records, confirming that most activity sits squarely in core physiological sensing and diagnosis. Healthcare informatics (G16H, 25.8%) and digital data processing (G06F, 23.4%) appear as secondary but meaningful layers, while electrotherapy, alarm signalling and connector/assembly classes each sit under 5% — thinner ground that has not attracted heavy claim density.
Shares are the percentage of the 128 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Patient Monitoring Systems with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about patient monitoring systems and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this field
Vital signs monitoring system with wireless pupilometer interface
A vital signs monitoring system and method for storing and accessing data obtained by a pupilometer make use of a pupilometer with a wireless telemetry interface to the vital signs monitor. The wireless telemetry interface permits transmission of information obtained by the pupilometer to a wireless telemetry module in a vital signs monitor. In this manner, the valuable information obtained by the pupilometer can be readily integrated with other information obtained by a vital signs monitor, and can be readily stored and retrieved by care-givers.Filed by Medtronic, this record illustrates how peripheral sensor integration via wireless telemetry was claimed well before informatics-layer patenting became prominent in the field.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US7899507B2 | Physiological monitor | 797 |
| 2 | US7894868B2 | Physiological monitor | 791 |
| 3 | US7891355B2 | Physiological monitor | 771 |
| 4 | US9211095B1 | Physiological measurement logic engine | 693 |
| 5 | US8364223B2 | Physiological monitor | 670 |
| 6 | US8255028B2 | Physiological monitor | 668 |
| 7 | US8532727B2 | Dual-mode pulse oximeter | 650 |
| 8 | US8721541B2 | Physiological monitor | 596 |
| 9 | US6694180B1 | Wireless biopotential sensing device and method with capability of short-range radio frequency transmission a… | 581 |
| 10 | US20140012100A1 | Dual-mode patient monitor | 573 |
Citation counts reflect a searched corpus and favour older filings; treat them as a signal of influence rather than of current 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 data means for strategy
Reading filing volume, citation weight and assignee concentration together points to where claim space is occupied and where it is still open.
A small leading group, then a long tail
The top 5 assignees hold 57.0% of all 128 records, and the top 10 extend that to 84.4%. Below tenth place, filing volume drops off sharply, leaving a long tail of single- or low-filing entrants rather than a broad competitive middle.
Activity has cooled since the 2017 high
Filing volume peaked at 13 in 2017 and has trended down toward a midpoint of 6 by 2022, with no sign of renewed growth. Recent-year momentum among named leaders shows flat or zero filings in the latest year, consistent with a mature, consolidating field rather than one attracting fresh entrants.
Core sensing dominates, informatics trails
Diagnosis and surgery classifications under A61B cover the large majority of records, while healthcare informatics (G16H) and digital data processing (G06F) appear in roughly a quarter of filings each. Electrotherapy, alarm signalling and connector hardware classes remain thin, each under 5% of records.
Influence is concentrated in early physiological-monitor patents
The most-cited records in this dataset are early physiological monitor filings, each carrying several hundred citations. That weight reflects age and corpus-search dynamics as much as current relevance, and newer filings in adjacent informatics or telemetry claims have not yet accumulated comparable citation counts.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to patient monitoring systems, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gate sits
Twenty-seven companies make up the full ranked list this dataset returns. A handful of established device and health-tech names hold the bulk of the volume, while co-assignee activity shows tight internal teams rather than broad cross-company collaboration.
One clear leader at the top
The top-ranked assignee holds 22 of the 128 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 9 and tenth place at 5. That gap between first and fifth defines the shape of the field: a dominant filer, then several steady mid-tier players.
Collaboration is internal, not cross-company
The strongest co-assignee pairs in the dataset link individual inventors within the same organisation rather than joint filings between separate companies. That pattern suggests invention here happens inside stable internal teams rather than through external partnerships or joint ventures.
Filing is US-centred with a European secondary channel
The United States receiving office accounts for the largest share of filings, with Europe (EPO) and the WIPO PCT route forming a smaller but consistent secondary channel. Australia, Finland and the United Kingdom appear at low single-digit volumes, suggesting most applicants treat the US as the primary market and file selectively elsewhere.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 1 | — |
| Masimo Corp | 0 | -100% |
| ICU Medical Inc | 0 | — |
| Apple Inc | 0 | — |
| General Electric Co | 0 | — |
| The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois | 0 | — |
| Cardiac Pacemakers Inc | 0 | — |
| Dragerwerk AG | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a consolidating field with specific technical gaps. The next step is testing a specific claim direction or freedom-to-operate question against the full record set.
Map a claim against the leading assignees' portfolios
Before drafting in a core A61B area, check how the top-ranked assignee's 22 records and the broader top-5 group's 57.0% share overlap with your intended claim scope.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTest white space in under-claimed IPC branches
Alarm signalling, electrotherapy and connector hardware classes each sit under 5% of the 128 records — worth a closer freedom-to-operate look before assuming the space is occupied.
Run a white space search in EurekaTrack momentum, not just historical volume
With the field's peak filing year in 2017 well behind it, current competitive positioning depends more on recent-year momentum than on cumulative counts.
Set up momentum tracking in EurekaCommon questions about patient monitoring system patents
The dataset's ranked list of 27 companies shows one clear leader holding 22 of the 128 records in scope, well ahead of the rest of the field. The top 5 assignees combined hold 57.0% of all records, and the top 10 extend that to 84.4%, meaning the great majority of filing activity sits with a small group of established device and health-tech companies. Below the tenth-ranked assignee, filing volume drops off quickly into a long tail of single- or low-filing entrants.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 at 13 records and has since flattened, with the 2022 midpoint sitting at 6. That is a flat-to-declining trend rather than a growth curve, though the most recent years, including the partial 2026 figure, understate true activity because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. Overall the pattern reads as a maturing field rather than one attracting a wave of new filers.
The large majority of records, 89.1% of the 128 in scope, fall under A61B, the IPC subclass covering diagnosis and surgery, confirming that core physiological sensing remains the centre of gravity. Healthcare informatics (G16H) and digital data processing (G06F) each appear in roughly a quarter of records, showing a meaningful but secondary software layer. Electrotherapy, alarm signalling, body-fluid devices, connectors and printed-circuit assemblies each account for a smaller share, generally under 15%.
The IPC composition shows several branches with comparatively low record counts against the dominant A61B cluster, including alarm-signalling systems, electrotherapy-integrated monitoring and connector or printed-circuit hardware, each under 5% of the 128 records. These lower counts do not guarantee the space is legally open, but they indicate less claim density than the core sensing and diagnosis area. A targeted freedom-to-operate search in those specific branches is a reasonable next step before drafting.
The most-cited records in this dataset are physiological-monitor patents that have had more years in circulation to accumulate citations from later filings, with counts reaching into the hundreds. This is a structural feature of citation analysis within any searched corpus: older documents have simply had more time to be cited, not necessarily more current relevance. Readers should treat high citation counts as a signal of historical influence rather than an indicator of which technology is most active today.
Research Patient Monitoring Systems in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole patient monitoring systems 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.