Radar Level Measurement Patents: Who Leads, Trends 2026
- 51.2% concentration. The top five ranked assignees hold 522 of the 1,020 records in scope, so the guided-wave and antenna claims that matter sit with a small group of instrumentation makers.
- Filings down 77% since the 2021 mark. From 39 filings in 2021 to 9 in 2024 — the last year the trend can be read as complete, since publication lags filing by about 18 months.
- Two classes cover most of the field. G01F (flow/level measuring) appears on 72.0% of records and G01S (radar positioning) on 40.1%, showing most filings pair a measurement method with radar hardware.
Filing growth compares 2021 (39 records) with 2024 (9) — 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 1,020 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
A mature instrumentation field with a concentrated core
Radar level measurement patenting covers how a radar or guided-wave signal is generated, launched into a tank or process vessel, and interpreted to determine fluid level despite fouling, foam interference or a variable dielectric constant. The dataset in scope runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off and captures 1,020 published records tied to guided-wave radar, level transmitters and the antenna and processing hardware around them.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 and has since tapered, which is consistent with a field where the core launcher and antenna geometry were claimed early and later filings narrow around specific sealing, fouling-compensation or dielectric-correction details rather than staking out new measurement principles.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
The dataset spans 1,020 published records from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, giving a decade-long view of how radar-based level measurement claims have layered up around a mature instrumentation core.
Filings peaked in 2017 and have since pulled back
Annual filings rose to a peak of 104 in 2017. Tracked from 2021 (39) to 2024 (the most recent year treatable as complete), filings fell 77% to 9. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and should not be read as a continued decline.
Flow/level measurement and radar positioning dominate the class mix
G01F (flow, level & volume measuring) appears on 72.0% of the 1,020 records and G01S (radar, sonar & positioning) on 40.1%, confirming that most filings combine a measurement-method claim with a radar-hardware claim. Material analysis (G01N, 12.3%) and antenna design (H01Q, 6.4%) form the next tier, with control systems (G05B, 2.7%) the thinnest-claimed class tracked.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,020 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Radar Level Measurement with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about radar level measurement and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records other filers had to design around
Use of resilient seals for high temperature and/or high pressure sealing in a guided wave radar level measurement device
A guided wave radar level measurement device includes a process connection composed of an outer conductor and a central conductor. The central conductor is surrounded at least in part by a dielectric material. One or more resilient metal seals can be employed to form a hermetic seal around a portion of the probe. The metal seal protects the dielectric material such that the hermetic seal is isolated from process and temperature shock. The metal seal(s) can be further mated with one or more insulators and one or more gaskets, the metal seal(s) to provide a thermal and mechanical barrier as well as offering chemical resistance to the guided wave radar level measurement apparatus.Filed by Honeywell International Inc., published 2017-11-07 — illustrates how sealing architecture, not the measurement method itself, is the claimed innovation.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US7345623B2 | Reflection free launcher for electromagnetic guide wire | 603 |
| 2 | US8890759B2 | Horn antenna for a radar device | 222 |
| 3 | US5173706A | Radar processor with range sidelobe reduction following doppler filtering | 155 |
| 4 | US7525476B1 | System and method for filling level determination | 120 |
| 5 | US6417666B1 | Boring tool tracking system and method using magnetic locating signal and wire-in-pipe data | 111 |
| 6 | US5128683A | Radar system with active array antenna, elevation-responsive PRF control, and beam multiplex control | 103 |
| 7 | US6330931B1 | Fall protection system and method | 99 |
| 8 | US20060225499A1 | Tank seal for guided wave radar level measurement | 97 |
| 9 | US6690320B2 | Time domain reflectometry measurement instrument | 84 |
| 10 | US20030151560A1 | Antenna system for a level measurement apparatus | 80 |
Ranked by citation count within the searched corpus; citation counts favour older records and should be read as a signal of influence, not current 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 filing pattern signals
Reading the class composition and the citation leaders together points to where claim space is occupied and where it is still open.
Ownership sits with a handful of instrumentation makers
The top five ranked assignees combine for 522 of the 1,020 records in scope. That level of concentration means most freedom-to-operate exposure traces back to a small set of long-established filers rather than being spread across the full 100-company ranking.
The peak claim-filing period has passed
Filings peaked at 104 in 2017 and fell to 9 by 2024. That decline reads as the core guided-wave and antenna geometry becoming settled prior art rather than a market contraction — later years in the dataset are still filling in due to publication lag.
One launcher patent anchors the whole field
US7345623B2, on a reflection-free launcher for an electromagnetic guide wire, carries 603 citations — far above the next most-cited record at 222. That gap marks the launcher geometry as the single structural element most other filers had to design around.
Control-loop integration is the thinnest-claimed branch
Control and regulating claims (G05B) appear on only 2.7% of records, well below the 72.0% carried by flow/level measurement claims. That gap is a candidate area for new claims tying sensor output directly to closed-loop control action.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to radar level measurement, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the core claims, and where they have not filed
The ranking covers 100 companies across the 1,020 records in scope. Ownership is heavily front-loaded, and recorded activity from the leading names has dropped off in the most recent tracked year — a signal worth checking against a freshly filed alternative before assuming any position is unopposed.
One filer holds roughly a fifth of the field
The leading assignee's 202 records sit well ahead of the fifth-place filer at 47, marking a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one. That gap is typical of a field built on a small number of foundational hardware patents.
Ten filers hold two-thirds of the recorded field
The top ten ranked assignees combine for 663 of the 1,020 records in scope. Beyond that group, filing volume falls off quickly into a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants.
Co-filing is limited and mostly internal
Only 10 co-assignee pairs are tracked in the dataset, and the strongest link pairs a single major filer with an individual inventor rather than with another company. That suggests most of the core IP was developed in-house rather than through cross-company R&D partnerships.
Leading filers show no recorded activity in the latest tracked year
Every one of the six most active assignees shows zero filings in the latest year, including a -100% year-on-year change for the top-ranked filer. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this likely reflects filings still working through the pipeline rather than a genuine stop in R&D.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Rosemount Tank Radar AB | 0 | -100% |
| Honeywell International Inc. | 0 | — |
| Rosemount Inc. | 0 | — |
| Endress+Hauser GmbH & Co. KG | 0 | — |
| VEGA Grieshaber KG | 0 | — |
| MAGNETROL INTERNATIONAL INC | 0 | — |
| Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Rochester Sensors 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.
Run a claim-level comparison against the leading assignees
Concentration at the top means most exposure traces back to a small group of filers; a claim chart against their key patents clarifies exactly what is blocked.
Compare claims in EurekaTrack filing momentum before it re-accelerates
Recorded activity from leading assignees has dropped to zero in the latest tracked year, but publication lag means this may reverse; monitoring now catches new filings early.
Set up monitoring in EurekaScope a claim in the under-claimed branches
Control-loop integration and free-space antenna feed geometry both show thin coverage relative to the core measurement classes, leaving room for a differentiated filing.
Explore white space in EurekaQuestions practitioners ask about this field
Filing is concentrated at the top: the leading assignee alone accounts for 202 of the 1,020 records in scope, and the top five ranked assignees together hold 51.2% of all records. The top ten extend that to 65.0%. Below that group sits a long tail of smaller filers, so freedom-to-operate work should focus first on the handful of companies holding the bulk of the portfolio rather than trying to clear every name in the ranking.
Filings peaked at 104 in 2017 and fell to 9 by 2024, a drop the dataset states as -77% between 2021 and 2024. This looks like a maturing claim space rather than a shrinking market: guided-wave launcher and antenna geometry were heavily claimed early, narrowing the room for new hardware claims. Note that 2025 and 2026 figures in any such dataset are always understated because publication lags filing by about 18 months, so the most recent two years should not be read as confirming a further slowdown.
Guided-wave radar claims, which sit inside the G01F/G01S combination covering the bulk of the corpus, center on a probe or launcher that guides the microwave pulse down a physical conductor into the process fluid. Free-space radar claims instead center on antenna design, most visibly the horn-antenna geometry behind one of the most-cited records in the set (US8890759B2, 222 citations). The two routes carry different fouling and dielectric-sensitivity trade-offs, which is why antenna claims (H01Q) and material-analysis claims (G01N) cluster differently around each.
US9810568B2, assigned to Honeywell, covers a guided-wave radar level device that uses resilient metal seals to hermetically protect the dielectric material around the central conductor from process heat and pressure shock. It is a sealing-architecture claim, not a claim over guided-wave measurement itself or over dielectric-constant compensation methods. A design using a different seal mechanism, or operating outside the high-temperature/high-pressure envelope the patent describes, is less likely to be affected, but a full claim-chart comparison is the only reliable way to confirm that.
The two thinnest-claimed classes tracked are control and regulating integration (G05B, 2.7% of records) and waveguide/microwave hardware (H01P, 3.4%), both far below the 72.0% and 40.1% occupied by the flow-measurement and radar-positioning core. That gap suggests the link between sensor output and closed-loop control action, and certain microwave feed-hardware variants, are comparatively open for new claims rather than already occupied by the incumbent instrumentation makers.
Research Radar Level Measurement in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole radar level measurement 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.