Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/remote-patient-monitoring-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Digital Health & Health InformaticsRemote Patient Monitoring Patents: Filing Trends, Leading Assignees and Open Claim Space
- Growth is real but recent years are undercounted. Filings rose 69% from 297 in 2021 to 502 in 2024, and publication lag means 2025-2026 figures will still climb.
- No single company controls the field. The leader holds 485 of 5,271 records, and the top 5 assignees combined account for just 19.3% of all records in scope.
- Interoperability and transmission claims are thinner than the diagnostic core. A61B and G16H each cover over half of records, while H04L digital transmission sits at just 9.8%.
5,271
Published Records
19%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+69%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (297 records) with 2024 (502) — 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 5,271 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What the remote patient monitoring patent record shows
Remote patient monitoring sits at the intersection of medical device claims and health informatics claims, and the 5,271 records in scope reflect that split: diagnosis-and-surgery filings under A61B and healthcare-informatics filings under G16H each cover more than half the dataset. The search string pairs monitoring-system language with data-handling terms such as clinical decision, care workflow and data interoperability, so the corpus captures both the sensor/device side of the field and the software layer that turns readings into actionable records.
Filing activity has grown steadily rather than exploded: from 92 records in 2017 to 392 in the most recent (partial) year, with 2025 the peak year recorded so far at 693. Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the last one to two years understate true filing activity and should not be read as a slowdown.
Annual filings, 2017-2026 (2026 partial)
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Remote Patient Monitoring Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Numbers
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 5,271-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry multiple classes, the class shares below sum to more than 100%.
Filings climbed from 92 (2017) to a recorded peak of 693 (2025)
The 2021-to-2024 span is the cleanest read on momentum: 297 records in 2021 rising to 502 in 2024, a 69% increase over three years. Treat 2025 and 2026 as still-filling-in rather than a plateau or decline.
A61B and G16H each cover more than half of all records
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) appears on 55.5% of records and G16H (healthcare informatics) on 52.2%, confirming that most filings combine a device or sensing claim with a data-management claim. Transmission-layer classes such as H04L (9.8%) and signalling/alarm class G08B (6.0%) are comparatively thin, which is where interoperability and alerting mechanics remain less densely claimed.
Shares are the percentage of the 5,271 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Remote Patient Monitoring Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Remote Patient Monitoring Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about remote patient monitoring patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited records anchoring this field
Representative Record
US20110184249A1 — Remote patient monitoring system
DAVIS, JR., DANIEL C.
The remote patient monitoring system includes a camera and radio connection device having electronic circuitry disposed in a housing. The device facilitates connection of interchangeable cameras and reconfigurable radios for remote monitoring of visually observable health indicia of a patient by a remotely located health professional. The system may also include a remote server for management of a plurality of patient sites and monitoring devices. The patient health related video images are digitally transmitted from the patient site to the remote health care provider over the Internet.Filed by Davis, Jr., Daniel C., published 2011-07-28.
Most-cited records in the dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6024699A | Systems, methods and computer program products for monitoring, diagnosing and treating medical conditions of … | 2,310 |
| 2 | US20080004904A1 | Systems and methods for providing interoperability among healthcare devices | 1,924 |
| 3 | US20130201316A1 | System and method for server based control | 1,727 |
| 4 | US20080001735A1 | Mesh network personal emergency response appliance | 1,720 |
| 5 | US6584336B1 | Universal/upgrading pulse oximeter | 1,575 |
| 6 | US20030036683A1 | Method, system and computer program product for internet-enabled, patient monitoring system | 1,393 |
| 7 | US6032119A | Personalized display of health information | 1,367 |
| 8 | US5544649A | Ambulatory patient health monitoring techniques utilizing interactive visual communication | 1,243 |
| 9 | US20070276270A1 | Mesh network stroke monitoring appliance | 1,217 |
| 10 | US6336900B1 | Home hub for reporting patient health parameters | 1,209 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on later filings, not of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Remote Patient Monitoring Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the data means for filing strategy
Reading volume, growth and technology mix together points to where claim space is occupied and where it still has room.
Growth
+69%
2021 → 2024 filings
Momentum is genuine, not a citation artefact
Filings rose from 297 in 2021 to 502 in 2024. That three-year window is the most reliable growth read available because later years are still incomplete due to publication lag.
2021-2024 complete-year data
Concentration
19.3%
share held by top 5 of 5,271 records
The field is led but not locked up
The leading assignee holds 485 records and the top 5 combined hold 19.3% of all 5,271 records in scope. That leaves a long tail of entrants with room to build a defensible position outside the leader's core claims.
Top 5 vs. all records in scope
Technology mix
9.8%
H04L share of records
Transmission and alerting claims are thinner than diagnostics
A61B and G16H each sit above 50% of records, but H04L (digital transmission) and G08B (signalling & alarm) sit under 10%. Claim density on the diagnostic core contrasts with lighter coverage on the plumbing that moves and flags that data.
IPC subclass shares, 5,271 records
Geography
2,041
US receiving-office records
Filing activity is US- and India-heavy
The United States (2,041) and India (1,395) are the largest receiving offices, ahead of WIPO PCT filings (607) and Europe (576). A filing strategy built only around the US and EPO would miss a substantial share of the recorded activity.
Receiving-office counts, this dataset
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to remote patient monitoring patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Remote Patient Monitoring Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where activity is slowing
The assignee ranking covers 100 companies returned by the data endpoint, counted by family. It is not a top-100 or top-50 cut of a larger set — it is the whole ranking as returned.
Leader
485
records held
One assignee holds the largest single share
The leading assignee's 485 records are well ahead of fifth place (69) and tenth place (46), showing a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one.
Leader vs. 5th and 10th place
Top 10
23.9%
share of all 5,271 records
Combined leadership still leaves most of the field open
The top 10 assignees together account for 1,258 records, or 23.9% of all records in scope. Roughly three-quarters of the dataset sits outside these ten names.
Top 10 vs. all records in scope
Momentum
-100% YoY
several established filers, latest year
Recent-year activity has cooled among some early movers
Multiple long-standing assignees show sharp year-over-year drops in the latest year, including filers that recorded zero in that year versus prior activity. Given publication lag, this reads as incomplete latest-year data as much as a genuine pullback.
Latest-year YoY by assignee
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| May Patents Ltd | 3 | -79% |
| Medtronic Inc | 2 | -33% |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | -100% |
| Masimo Corp | 0 | -100% |
| ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION SYSTEMS INC | 0 | -100% |
| TRAN BAO | 0 | -100% |
| Cerner Innovation Inc | 0 | -100% |
| MedApps Inc | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Remote Patient Monitoring Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this next
The trends above describe the field as a whole; the next step is testing a specific claim or design-around against it.
Check freedom-to-operate on a specific claim
Cross-reference a draft claim against the most-cited records and the leader's portfolio before committing engineering resources.
Explore in Eureka →Track the under-claimed sub-areas over time
Interoperability and alerting claims are thin today but the filing trend is still rising; monitor whether that gap closes.
Set up monitoring in Eureka →Map the long tail beyond the ranked leaders
With 76.1% of records held outside the top 10 assignees, smaller filers and new entrants are worth individual review.
Search assignees in Eureka →Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Remote Patient Monitoring Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about remote patient monitoring patents
One assignee leads clearly with 485 records in this dataset, well ahead of the fifth-ranked company at 69 and the tenth-ranked at 46. Even so, the top 5 assignees combined hold only 19.3% of all 5,271 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 23.9%. That means most of the field's activity sits with companies outside the leading names, so a competitive review should not stop at the top of the ranking.
Yes, based on complete-year data: filings rose from 297 in 2021 to 502 in 2024, a 69% increase over that three-year span, and the recorded peak so far is 693 in 2025. Figures for 2025 and 2026 will keep rising as more applications publish, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. Treat the most recent one to two years as undercounted rather than as evidence of a slowdown.
Diagnosis-and-surgery claims under IPC class A61B appear on 55.5% of the 5,271 records, and healthcare-informatics claims under G16H appear on 52.2%, meaning a majority of filings combine a device or sensing element with a data-management element. Supporting classes include electric digital data processing (G06F, 21.2%) and AI-based computing (G06N, 8.4%). Transmission (H04L, 9.8%) and alarm/signalling (G08B, 6.0%) are comparatively lighter, marking where claim density thins out.
The thinner IPC classes relative to the diagnostic and informatics core point to under-claimed territory: digital transmission and interoperability protocols (H04L, 9.8% of records), signalling and alert logic (G08B, 6.0%), and body-fluid device data integration (A61M, 6.5%). These are not empty spaces, but they carry meaningfully less claim density than the A61B and G16H core, which is where a first claim built around device interoperability or automated alert escalation would face less crowded prior art.
US6024699A, covering systems and methods for monitoring, diagnosing and treating medical conditions of remotely located patients, is the most-cited record in this dataset at 2,310 citations. It is followed by records on interoperability among healthcare devices and mesh-network emergency response devices, each with over 1,700 citations. High citation counts in an older record reflect its long exposure time in the corpus and its influence on later filings, not necessarily its current commercial relevance.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Remote Patient Monitoring Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Remote Patient Monitoring Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole remote patient monitoring 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.