Space Debris Tracking Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
Filing growth compares 2021 (1,463 records) with 2024 (1,151) — 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 68,291 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the filing record actually shows
The search string behind this dataset captures 68,291 published records tagged against space debris tracking terms between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off. That volume is wider than orbital debris work alone: the technology composition below shows heavy overlap with surgical robotics, computer vision and general control-systems filings, a reminder that classification and keyword co-occurrence pull in adjacent domains rather than a single clean industry. Readers should treat the corpus as a lens on tracking, sensing and disposal-adjacent claim language rather than a strict inventory of orbital debris hardware.
Filing activity rose through the late 2010s, peaked in 2022, and has since eased against a backdrop of publication lag: 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and should not be read as a slowdown in actual filing activity. Ownership is concentrated at the very top but thins quickly — the leading assignee alone holds roughly a quarter of the top-10 combined total, while the remaining ranked entrants each hold far smaller counts.
Filing trend and technology mix
Two views of the same corpus: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density behind space debris tracking terminology.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Volume climbed from 1,066 records in 2017 to a peak of 1,597 in 2022, then eased to 1,151 by 2024 — a -21% move from 2021's 1,463. 2025 and 2026 figures (down to 138) are still incomplete because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months; they are not evidence of a further decline.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) leads at 4.7% of the 68,291 records in scope, ahead of G06F (electric digital data processing) at 3.0% and G05D (control of non-electric variables) at 2.4%. Radar, sonar and positioning claims under G01S sit further down at 2.0%, roughly level with material analysis (G01N). Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares add up past 100% and should be read individually against the record total, not summed.
Shares are the percentage of the 68,291 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: Space Debris Tracking Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about space-domain awareness & debris: space debris tracking patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative claim and the most-cited prior art
Systematic tracking, harvesting and in-space disposal of space debris (US20160264268A1)
The filing describes in-orbit clearance and disposal of space debris using trawler harvesting, laser-based methods and remote-piloted handling, with events located, legally verified and coordinated through integrated USAF geospatial software and database systems, and debris transported to a disposal facility in high geostationary earth orbit.Filed by an individual inventor rather than a corporate assignee — a useful reminder that not every consequential claim in this space comes from a large portfolio holder.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20070135803A1 | Methods and apparatus for performing transluminal and other procedures | 3,204 |
| 2 | US9332987B2 | Control arrangements for a drive member of a surgical instrument | 2,925 |
| 3 | US20090254572A1 | Digital information infrastructure and method | 2,827 |
| 4 | US20160066913A1 | Local display of tissue parameter stabilization | 2,791 |
| 5 | US9757128B2 | Multiple sensors with one sensor affecting a second sensor's output or interpretation | 2,526 |
| 6 | US9737301B2 | Monitoring device degradation based on component evaluation | 2,447 |
| 7 | US20170296213A1 | Systems and methods for controlling a surgical stapling and cutting instrument | 2,425 |
| 8 | US6575969B1 | Cool-tip radiofrequency thermosurgery electrode system for tumor ablation | 2,220 |
| 9 | US20130278631A1 | 3D positioning of augmented reality information | 2,103 |
| 10 | US9788836B2 | Multiple motor control for powered medical device | 1,928 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside this corpus — read them as a signal of influence on the field's language, not of current commercial relevance.
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 →Reading the concentration and momentum figures
The ranking and the recent-year momentum figures point in different directions: the largest historical filer is also cooling the fastest, while the field's real weight sits in imaging, control and data-processing classes rather than pure tracking sensors.
Ownership is top-heavy but thin overall
The top 10 ranked assignees combined account for 11.2% of all 68,291 records in scope, and the top 5 for 7.6%. That leaves the overwhelming majority of filings spread across a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants, which is typical of a keyword-defined corpus spanning several distinct industries rather than one consolidated technology.
The largest historical filer is pulling back hardest
The leading assignee's recent-year output fell 88% year over year to single digits, and several other ranked filers show similarly steep declines. Because the most recent years are still incomplete due to publication lag, this looks more like a reporting gap than a genuine exit from the field, but it means current-year rankings should not be taken at face value.
Surgical and imaging classes outweigh pure tracking sensors
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) and G06F (data processing) each carry a larger share of the 68,291 records than G01S (radar, sonar & positioning), the class most associated with physical debris tracking. That composition confirms the corpus captures broad sensing-and-control claim language, not a narrow orbital-debris hardware category.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to space-domain awareness & debris: space debris tracking patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. | SCHWARTZ MAXIM | 11 |
| Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. | TAIEB YOAV | 10 |
| Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. | SHALEV SHWARTZ SHAI | 10 |
| Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. | SPRINGER OFER | 9 |
| Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. | SHAAG NADAV | 9 |
| Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. | GOLDMAN YEHONATAN | 9 |
| Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. | COHEN ASAF | 8 |
| Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. | STEIN GIDEON | 7 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest links repeat the same handful of individual inventors alongside one corporate assignee — collaboration filing is the exception here, not the norm.
Where to take this next
The figures above describe the field as it stands; the next step is testing a specific claim or filing strategy against it.
Stress-test a claim against the most-cited prior art
Run a candidate claim against the most-cited records in this corpus to see how much of the language is already occupied, particularly around sensing and disposal-coordination steps.
Open Eureka →Map the white space chips to a filing strategy
The under-claimed branches above are starting points, not conclusions — cross them against a target jurisdiction's receiving-office volume before committing search terms.
Explore in Eureka →Common questions about space debris tracking patents
This dataset captures 68,291 published records matching space debris tracking search terms between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off. That figure includes documents that reference tracking, sensing and disposal concepts broadly, not only dedicated orbital-debris hardware, because the underlying keyword search pulls in adjacent fields like surgical robotics and computer vision. Filing volume peaked in 2022 at 1,597 records before easing, though the most recent years are understated due to publication lag.
The ranked leader in this corpus holds 1,297 records, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 789 and the tenth at 444, indicating a steep drop-off rather than a tightly bunched leadership group. Even so, the top 10 combined account for only 11.2% of all 68,291 records in scope, so the majority of filing activity sits with a long tail of smaller and single-filing entrants. This pattern is typical of a technology area defined by broad keyword overlap across multiple industries rather than one consolidated competitive field.
Filing rose through the late 2010s and peaked in 2022 at 1,597 records, then declined to 1,151 by 2024 — a -21% move from 2021's 1,463, which is the most recent period that can be treated as reasonably complete. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are lower still, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than a genuine falloff in inventive activity. Anyone using this trend to justify a filing decision should anchor on the 2021-2024 window, not the tail years.
Diagnosis and surgery-related claims under IPC class A61B lead at 4.7% of the 68,291 records in scope, ahead of electric digital data processing (G06F) at 3.0% and non-electric control systems (G05D) at 2.4%. Radar, sonar and positioning claims under G01S, the class most directly tied to physical debris tracking, sit further down at 2.0%, on par with material analysis and testing (G01N). Because a single record can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares should be read individually rather than added together.
Based on the technology composition and representative filings in this corpus, laser-based deorbiting apparatus, legal-verification workflows for orbital object removal, and geostationary disposal-facility logistics all appear thinly claimed relative to the breadth of the search terms. Multi-sensor fusion for low-earth-orbit tracking and radar-optical cross-cueing for cataloguing are adjacent branches with room for a first-mover claim. Any of these should be checked against the most-cited prior art before drafting, since surgical-robotics and imaging filings occupy some of the same sensing language.
Research Space-Domain Awareness & Debris: Space Debris Tracking Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole space-domain awareness & debris: space debris tracking 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.