Conjunction Risk Assessment Patents: Who Leads, Trends 2026
Filing growth compares 2021 (1,454 records) with 2024 (1,087) — 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 526,909 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent families whose claims combine conjunction, risk and assessment concepts, a search construction wide enough to catch collision-probability scoring, alert-threshold logic and decision-support workflows wherever they surface — in orbital debris tracking as well as in adjacent risk-scoring domains that reuse the same computational language. The scope runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, with 526,909 records in the dataset and a 100-company assignee ranking behind the leaderboard.
Because the search string is concept-based rather than restricted to a single IPC class, the corpus spans finance, healthcare and industrial risk-scoring filings alongside space-domain records. That breadth is useful for benchmarking claim language and prior art density, but it means the IPC composition below should be read as where conjunction-risk logic is being claimed across sectors, not as a space-only picture.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 526,909-record corpus: filing activity by year, and where those records sit across IPC subclasses. Both use the full record count as the denominator.
Filing activity, 2017-2026
Filings rose from 981 in 2017 to a peak of 1,454 in 2021, then eased to 1,087 by 2024 — a -25% move over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures (down to 102 for the partial 2026 year) are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months; treat the most recent two years as understated rather than as a genuine falloff.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) leads at 1.1% of all 526,909 records, closely followed by G06F (electric digital data processing) at 1.0%. Diagnosis/surgery, healthcare informatics, material testing, digital transmission, enzyme/DNA measurement and AI-model computing subclasses each sit below 0.6%, reflecting how conjunction-risk claim language spreads thinly across many domains rather than concentrating in one.
Shares are the percentage of the 526,909 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Space-Domain Awareness & Debris: Conjunction Risk Assessment Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about space-domain awareness & debris: conjunction risk assessment patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited records
Disaster risk assessment system, disaster risk assessment support method, disaster risk assessment service providing system, disaster risk assessment method, and disaster risk assessment service providing method
This disaster risk assessment system assesses a difference between a disaster-time direct loss amount in current equipment and disaster-time direct loss amount in equipment after taking measures and compares the difference with a disaster measures equipment cost for presenting decision making information on disaster measures. As assessment requirements, the system also takes a business value loss amount into consideration and presents an insurance premium that is required to cover an expected disaster-time loss amount by an insurance payment.Filed by Toshiba, published 2004-11-25 — one of the earlier records in scope combining loss-differential scoring with a cost-comparison decision layer.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20070087756A1 | Multifactorial optimization system and method | 1,866 |
| 2 | US7260431B2 | Combined remodeling control therapy and anti-remodeling therapy by implantable cardiac device | 1,668 |
| 3 | US5732400A | System and method for a risk-based purchase of goods | 1,646 |
| 4 | US20170235848A1 | System and method for fuzzy concept mapping, voting ontology crowd sourcing, and technology prediction | 1,473 |
| 5 | US6321212B1 | Financial products having a demand-based, adjustable return, and trading exchange therefor | 1,384 |
| 6 | US6119103A | Financial risk prediction systems and methods therefor | 1,251 |
| 7 | US20140075004A1 | System And Method For Fuzzy Concept Mapping, Voting Ontology Crowd Sourcing, And Technology Prediction | 1,144 |
| 8 | US20060282660A1 | System and method for fraud monitoring, detection, and tiered user authentication | 1,096 |
| 9 | US20160099963A1 | Methods and systems for sharing risk responses between collections of mobile communications devices | 987 |
| 10 | US6658393B1 | Financial risk prediction systems and methods therefor | 929 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — treat them as a measure of influence within this searched corpus, not as a ranking 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 mean for a filing decision
Read together, the concentration, trend and citation figures point to a field with room to file but dense adjacent prior art in the computational core.
No single owner blocks the field
The leader holds 6,207 records out of 526,909, and the top 5 combined reach only 4.7% of all records in scope. Even the top 10 combined reach just 7.7%. That is a long tail of filers rather than a handful of gatekeepers.
Post-peak cooling, not collapse
Filings peaked at 1,454 in 2021 and eased to 1,087 by 2024. That is the last year with a complete publication window; 2025-26 counts will keep rising as later filings publish, so read the recent-year dip as a lag artefact rather than declining interest.
Computation, not orbital mechanics, dominates the classes
The two largest IPC subclasses, G06Q and G06F, are general business-process and data-processing categories rather than space-specific classes. Risk-assessment claim language is being filed as software logic first, which matters for anyone drafting claims meant to survive prior art searches across sectors.
Influence sits with older, general-purpose filings
The most-cited records in this corpus date from the 2000s and cover optimization systems and risk-based transaction methods rather than space-domain filings specifically — a reminder that citation counts favour age and breadth of applicability over domain relevance.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to space-domain awareness & debris: conjunction risk assessment patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Turning this landscape into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision
The figures above describe the field as it stands at the 2026-07-31 cut-off. Turning them into a decision means drilling into specific claim sets and the assignees behind them.
Check claim overlap before drafting
With no single assignee holding more than a small share of records, freedom-to-operate risk is more likely to come from a cluster of similar claims than one blocking patent. Run the specific claim language you plan to file against the densest IPC subclasses first.
Explore claim clustering in Eureka →Track the assignees still filing
Momentum data shows broad pullback, but a handful of assignees are still filing in the latest tracked year. Watching those filers closely is more informative than watching the historical leaders.
Set up assignee monitoring in Eureka →Common questions on conjunction risk assessment patents
The dataset ranks 100 assignees, and the leader holds 6,207 of the 526,909 records in scope. However, concentration at the top is low: the five largest assignees combined account for only 4.7% of all records, and the top ten reach 7.7%. Practically, this means no single company's portfolio dominates the field, and a freedom-to-operate review needs to look well beyond the largest filers.
Filings rose from 981 in 2017 to a peak of 1,454 in 2021, then declined to 1,087 by 2024, a -25% move over that three-year span. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are lower still, but that reflects publication lag of roughly 18 months rather than a genuine drop in activity, since later filings have not all published yet. The 2021-2024 window is the most reliable basis for judging the trend's direction.
Business-process and data-processing IPC classes, G06Q and G06F, lead the technology composition at 1.1% and 1.0% of all 526,909 records respectively. Space- or measurement-specific classes such as G01N and healthcare-adjacent classes like G16H and A61B sit further down, each below 0.6%. This spread indicates that conjunction-risk claim language is largely being filed as general computational logic rather than as domain-specific space engineering, which affects how prior art searches should be structured.
Sub-areas such as multi-object conjunction screening automation, probability-of-collision threshold calibration and cross-operator conjunction data-sharing protocols show thinner representation relative to the breadth of the underlying search construction. These branches sit adjacent to the dense G06Q/G06F computational core but are not yet heavily claimed there. A first claim in these areas should tie the specific data-sharing or threshold-calibration mechanism to a concrete technical trigger rather than claiming the risk-scoring concept broadly.
Citation counts in this corpus favour older, broadly applicable filings — the most-cited record here dates to the mid-2000s and covers a general optimization system rather than a space-domain-specific method. Newer filings simply have not had time to accumulate citations, so a high count signals influence within the searched corpus, not necessarily current technical relevance. Use citation rank as one input alongside filing recency and IPC classification, not as a standalone importance score.
Research Space-Domain Awareness & Debris: Conjunction Risk Assessment Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole space-domain awareness & debris: conjunction risk assessment 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.