Raman Process Monitoring Data Fusion Patents: Who Leads and Where Filing Is Cooling
Filing peaked in 2019 at 17 records and fell from 16 in 2021 to 4 in 2024, a -75% swing over that span — the field's early land-grab phase looks largely over. Filings were at zero in 2017, climbed to a peak of 17 in 2019, then declined; the last complete year, 2024, sits at 4, down 75% from 16 in 2021. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as undercounts still filling in rather than evidence of a further drop.
- 1CELL THERAPY CATAPULT27
- 2WILMAR INTERNATIONAL12
- 3ASTRAZENECA AB8
- 4KOREA INST OF MATERIALS SCI7
- 5AALTO UNIV FOUND7
See the full raman process monitoring data fusion analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions about this landscape
Who holds the most patents in Raman process monitoring data fusion?
One assignee leads the ranked list with 27 of the 100 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 7. The top 5 assignees combined hold 61.0% of all records, and the top 10 hold 82.0%, so the field is concentrated at the top even though 45 companies appear across the full ranking. That leaves a long tail of assignees with only one or two filings each.
Is patent filing in this area growing or slowing down?
Filing rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 17 records in 2019, then declined to 4 by 2024 — a -75% change over the 2021-2024 window. Because patent publication typically lags filing by about eighteen months, the 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as continued decline. The safest statement is that the early growth phase has passed and 2024 marks the last reliable data point.
What technology areas overlap most with Raman spectroscopy in these patents?
Every record in scope falls under G01N (material analysis and testing) by definition of the search. Beyond that, 26% also carry G01J (radiation and light measurement) and 16% carry G06N (AI-model computing), with smaller overlaps in A61B (diagnosis and surgery, 11%) and G06F (digital data processing, 9%). This shows fusion claims are typically bundled with either the optical hardware or the computational model rather than filed as a standalone signal-processing method.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Raman Process Monitoring Data Fusion covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.