Pressure & Force Sensor Patents: Top Companies, Trends 2026
- Concentration is modest at the top. the leading assignee holds 141 records, but the top 5 combine for only 22.5% of the 1,602 records in scope — this is not a field locked up by one player.
- Filing has cooled since its 2017 peak of 127. the complete-year trend shows 2021's 100 filings falling to 42 by 2024, a -58% move over that span, though 2025-26 figures are still filling in under publication lag.
- Diagnosis and surgery dominates the claim space. A61B accounts for 29.8% of all 1,602 records, more than double the dedicated force-and-pressure-measurement class G01L at 12.3%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (100 records) with 2024 (42) — 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. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 1,602 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this dataset covers
This landscape tracks 1,602 patent records published between 2015 and 2026 that combine pressure or force sensing with a signal, calibration, error-detection or contact-position function — the search string deliberately pairs a sensing modality with a downstream measurement or control task rather than the sensor hardware alone. That pairing pulls in a wide span of applications: vehicle diagnostics, implantable and wearable medical devices, vaping hardware, and industrial force measurement all show up because each depends on a pressure or force signal being calibrated, thresholded or compensated in use.
The composition skews medical and automotive rather than purely instrumentation-focused. A61B (diagnosis and surgery) and A61N (electrotherapy) together account for a larger share of records than the dedicated force-and-pressure-measurement class G01L, which signals that most of the patenting activity in this corpus is happening at the application layer — where a sensor signal feeds a clinical or control decision — rather than in sensor design itself.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,602 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings peaked at 127 in 2017. Using only complete years, the 100 filings recorded in 2021 dropped to 42 by 2024 — a -58% move. The 2025 and 2026 counts (down to 6 by 2026) should be read as still-incomplete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so recent-year totals will keep rising as later filings publish.
IPC subclass composition
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) leads at 29.8% of the 1,602 records, ahead of A61N (electrotherapy, 13.0%) and G01L (force & pressure measurement, 12.3%). A61M (body-fluid devices, 11.1%), G06F (data processing, 6.4%), A24F (smokers' requisites, 5.5%), G01N (material testing, 5.4%) and F02D (engine control, 4.9%) round out the picture. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to well over 100% of the record total — they describe overlap, not a partition.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,602 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Pressure, Force & Strain Sensors Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about pressure, force & strain sensors patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative record from the corpus
Static and dynamic pressure compensation for intake oxygen sensing
An oxygen sensor pressure compensation system includes a static pressure compensation module to receive an oxygen sensor signal from an oxygen sensor and a pressure signal from a pressure sensor and to perform static pressure compensation. A dynamic pressure compensation module receives the oxygen sensor signal and the pressure signal and to perform dynamic pressure compensation. A summing module generates a compensated oxygen signal based on the static pressure compensation and the dynamic pressure compensation.Filed by GM Global Technology Operations LLC, this record illustrates the F02D-class pattern in this dataset: a pressure signal is not patented on its own but bundled with a specific compensation architecture (static plus dynamic modules feeding a summing stage) applied to a named control problem — here, intake oxygen sensing accuracy.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050192727A1 | Sensor Assemblies | 1,180 |
| 2 | US7103460B1 | System and method for vehicle diagnostics | 1,176 |
| 3 | US20050273218A1 | System for obtaining vehicular information | 703 |
| 4 | US20020165462A1 | Sleep apnea risk evaluation | 537 |
| 5 | US20150245669A1 | Electronic vaping device and components thereof | 497 |
| 6 | US20150366504A1 | Electromyographic Clothing | 473 |
| 7 | US20080039731A1 | Wearable Pulse Wave Velocity Blood Pressure Sensor and Methods of Calibration Thereof | 388 |
| 8 | US20110112442A1 | Monitoring, Predicting and Treating Clinical Episodes | 380 |
| 9 | US7421321B2 | System for obtaining vehicular information | 365 |
| 10 | US6811538B2 | Sleep apnea risk evaluation | 353 |
Ranked by citation count within this searched corpus. High citation counts favour older filings that have had more years to accumulate citations, so treat this as a signal of influence rather than of current technical importance.
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 say about this field
Four read-outs from the concentration, trend and citation data, framed for a filing or freedom-to-operate decision.
Leadership without lock-up
The leading assignee holds 141 records and the top 5 combined reach 22.5% of all 1,602 records in scope — meaningful but far from dominant. A long tail of single- and few-filing entrants sits behind the ranked leaders, which is typical of a field organised around application-layer integration rather than a core patentable sensor architecture.
Filing volume has pulled back from its 2017 peak
Filings peaked at 127 in 2017 and, on the last complete years available, fell from 100 in 2021 to 42 in 2024. That is a real pullback in claim volume, not a data artefact, though 2025-26 counts are still under-published and should not be read as confirming a continued decline.
The application layer outweighs the sensor layer
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) covers close to three in ten of the 1,602 records, more than double the share held by G01L, the class dedicated to force and pressure measurement itself. Most activity here is protecting how a sensor signal is used in a clinical or control workflow, not the transducer design.
Filing is US-anchored with a strong EPO and PCT presence
The United States receives the largest single share of filings at 592 records, followed by the EPO at 297 and WIPO/PCT at 148. Japan, Australia and Germany each carry a smaller but non-trivial share, indicating that protection strategies in this space are typically built around a US-first filing with EPO and PCT follow-through.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to pressure, force & strain sensors patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where momentum is shifting
The ranking spans 100 companies drawn from the full assignee list returned for this dataset — not a curated top-50 or top-100 cut. Momentum data shows recent-year filing counts falling even among the more active names, consistent with the broader pullback since 2017.
The single largest filer by a wide margin
The leading assignee's 141 records is roughly five times the count needed to reach fifth place (27), making it the clearest outlier in the ranking. That gap does not repeat further down the table, where the tenth-place holder sits at 21 records.
A shallow drop-off after the leader
Records held by the fifth- and tenth-ranked assignees sit close together at 27 and 21, indicating a competitive mid-tier rather than a second clear leader. Freedom-to-operate work in this space needs to check a cluster of similarly sized portfolios, not just the top name.
Even active filers are slowing
Tracked assignees with recent-year activity show year-on-year declines ranging from -33% to -86%, and several other named filers show zero records in the latest year. This is consistent with the corpus-wide pullback from the 2017 peak rather than isolated to any one company.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| NALU MEDICAL INC | 2 | -33% |
| Altria Client Services LLC | 1 | -50% |
| Fractyl Health Inc | 1 | -86% |
| 3M Innovative Properties Co | 0 | — |
| St Jude Medical Systems | 0 | — |
| FUNCTIONAL NEUROMODULATION | 0 | — |
| AbbVie Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Ford Global Technologies LLC | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The figures above establish the shape of the field. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going deeper on specific claims and specific competitors.
Check freedom-to-operate against the mid-tier cluster
The shallow gap between fifth and tenth place means a real FTO review has to look past the single leader to a cluster of similarly sized portfolios.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaPressure-test the under-claimed branches
Light filing density in a sub-area is an opportunity signal, not a guarantee of clear space — verify against full claim text before committing a filing strategy.
Run a white space search in EurekaRevisit the trend once 2025-26 data settles
Publication lag means the most recent two years understate real filing activity; a follow-up pull in twelve months will sharpen the post-2024 picture.
Set up a monitoring alert in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The assignee ranking for this dataset covers 100 companies, with the leading filer holding 141 records against a field total of 1,602. The top 5 combined account for 22.5% of all records, and the gap narrows quickly after the leader — fifth place holds 27 records and tenth place holds 21. This points to one clear leader followed by a competitive mid-tier rather than a small cartel controlling the space, so a competitive review should look well beyond the single top name.
Filing peaked in 2017 at 127 records and has declined since on the last complete years available, falling from 100 in 2021 to 42 in 2024 — a -58% move over that span. The 2025 and 2026 figures are lower still but should not be read as continuing that decline, because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months and those years are still filling in. A fair read is that filing activity cooled markedly from its 2017 high, with the post-2024 trajectory not yet resolved.
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) is the largest single IPC subclass at 29.8% of the 1,602 records, ahead of A61N (electrotherapy, 13.0%) and G01L (force and pressure measurement itself, 12.3%). Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares overlap and add to more than 100% of the record total. The pattern shows that most patenting activity sits at the application layer — clinical, control or consumer-device use of a pressure or force signal — rather than in sensor transducer design alone.
US20150047424A1, filed by GM Global Technology Operations, covers a system that compensates an oxygen sensor signal using both static and dynamic pressure compensation modules feeding a summing stage, applied specifically to intake oxygen sensing. It does not claim pressure compensation broadly; the claim scope is tied to that specific dual-module architecture and application. Work that compensates a sensor signal using a different architecture, or applies compensation to a different sensing task, is likely to sit outside its claims, but a full freedom-to-operate check should compare claim language directly rather than relying on the abstract.
Relative to the dense A61B and A61N classes, areas like train-position and wheel-contact force sensing, multi-sensor calibration-reference fusion, and detection-threshold logic for implantable devices show comparatively lighter filing density in this dataset. That does not guarantee open claim space — it means fewer records surfaced under this search string, and a targeted claim-chart review is still needed before filing. Co-assignee activity in this corpus is also thin, with only 10 co-assignee pairs identified, suggesting most of this work is being filed by single entities rather than through joint development arrangements.
Research Pressure, Force & Strain Sensors Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole pressure, force & strain sensors patent landscape 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.