Speech Neuroprosthesis Decoding Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing has cooled since its 2020 peak. activity hit 14 records that year and has trended flat-to-down since, with the most recent year necessarily undercounted due to publication lag.
- Five assignees hold just over half the field. the top 5 account for 53.1% of all 96 records in scope, and the top 10 extend that to 77.1% — a steep concentration for a still-young application area.
- Almost every record touches speech/audio processing claims. 93.8% of records carry a G10L classification, while implant hardware (A61F, 5.2%) and AI-model claims (G06N, 4.2%) remain comparatively rare.
What this landscape covers
Speech neuroprosthesis decoding sits at the intersection of intracortical brain-computer interfaces and speech signal processing: methods that turn neural or optical signals recorded from cortex into phonemes, words, or synthesized speech. This landscape draws on 96 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, searched against claim and title/abstract language covering word error rate, decoding latency, vocabulary size, phoneme-level decoding, electrode coverage, and performance stability — the technical vocabulary that separates working decoding systems from adjacent BCI or generic speech-recognition filings.
The dataset is dominated by software- and algorithm-facing claims rather than implant hardware, and filing activity has already passed a visible peak. Both facts matter for anyone deciding where to file next: dense claim coverage in one subclass does not mean the underlying problem is solved, only that the claim space around it is crowded.
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 96 records: filings by year, and the IPC subclasses those filings carry. Because a single record can carry more than one IPC class, the subclass shares add up to more than 100% of the record total.
A 2020 peak, then decline
Filings rose to 10 in 2017, peaked at 14 in 2020, and had fallen back to 7 by the 2022 midpoint. Treat the final one to two years as understated: publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so recent-year counts will revise upward as more records publish.
Speech and audio processing dominates the claim set
G10L (speech and audio analysis/synthesis) appears in 93.8% of the 96 records in scope, far ahead of A61B diagnosis-and-surgery claims (16.7%) and G06F data-processing claims (8.3%). Implant-specific hardware under A61F appears in only 5.2% of records, and AI-model-specific claims under G06N in just 4.2% — both comparatively open relative to the software-heavy core.
Shares are the percentage of the 96 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Speech Neuroprosthesis Decoding with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about speech neuroprosthesis decoding and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
Method of Contextual Speech Decoding from the Brain (US20220301563A1)
Provided are methods of contextual decoding and/or speech decoding from the brain of a subject. The methods include decoding neural or optical signals from the cortical region of an individual, extracting context-related features and/or speech-related features from the neural or optical signals, and decoding the context-related features and/or speech-related features from the neural or optical signals. Contextual decoding and speech decoding systems and devices for practicing the subject methods are also provided.Filed by The Regents of the University of California, published 2022-09-22 — one of the field's more recent, broadly worded filings on contextual decoding from cortical signals.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5867817A | Speech recognition manager | 387 |
| 2 | US5349645A | Word hypothesizer for continuous speech decoding using stressed-vowel centered bidirectional tree searches | 317 |
| 3 | US20140244248A1 | Conversion of non-back-off language models for efficient speech decoding | 238 |
| 4 | US5933805A | Retaining prosody during speech analysis for later playback | 109 |
| 5 | US5909663A | Speech decoding method and apparatus for selecting random noise codevectors as excitation signals for an unvo… | 101 |
| 6 | US20210074264A1 | Speech recognition method, apparatus, and computer readable storage medium | 89 |
| 7 | US5915237A | Representing speech using MIDI | 71 |
| 8 | US4473904A | Speech information transmission method and system | 71 |
| 9 | CN105869624A | 数字语音识别中语音解码网络的构建方法及装置 | 65 |
| 10 | US20140067394A1 | System and method for decoding speech | 53 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on the field's vocabulary, not as a ranking of current relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 filing strategy
Three patterns worth acting on before drafting new claims in this space.
The core is already claimed by a small group
The top 5 assignees hold 53.1% of all 96 records in scope, extending to 77.1% across the top 10. That leaves a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants competing for the remaining claim space, mostly around narrower implementation details rather than the core decoding pipeline.
Activity has already crested once
Filings rose from 10 in 2017 to a peak of 14 in 2020, then eased to 7 by the 2022 midpoint. Several of the leading assignees show zero filings in the latest tracked year, though that figure is depressed by publication lag rather than necessarily reflecting withdrawal from the space.
Software claims dominate; hardware is thinner
Nearly all records touch speech/audio processing claims (G10L), while implant-specific hardware (A61F, 5.2%) and AI-model-specific claims (G06N, 4.2%) appear far less often. That gap is where hardware-integration and model-architecture claims still have room to be staked out.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to speech neuroprosthesis decoding, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
A small set of assignees account for the majority of filings, with academic and Big Tech names appearing alongside consumer electronics groups. Co-assignee activity is limited to a handful of pairs, mostly linking one university to individual named inventors.
A single academic assignee leads the ranking
The top-ranked assignee holds 17 of the 96 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 6 and tenth place at 4 — a steep drop-off that signals one institution has built a broad early portfolio around cortical speech decoding.
Most filers appear only once or twice
Beyond the top 10, which together hold 77.1% of records, the remaining assignees in the 33-company ranking each hold small counts. This is typical of a field still young enough that few players have committed to sustained filing programs.
Collaboration is limited and university-centred
Only 7 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, the strongest linking the leading university assignee with individually named inventors rather than with other corporate filers. Cross-company joint filing is essentially absent so far.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| The Regents of the University of California | 0 | -100% |
| Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Sony Group Corporation | 0 | — |
| Google LLC | 0 | — |
| Intel Corporation | 0 | — |
| International Business Machines Corporation | 0 | — |
| VIRTUAL VISION INC | 0 | — |
| Toshiba Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with a clear leader, a cooling filing rate, and thinner coverage outside speech/audio processing claims. The next steps depend on whether you are filing, licensing, or tracking competitors.
Map claims against the leader's portfolio
Before drafting in the core decoding pipeline, check claim scope against the top-ranked assignee's 17 records to identify where dependent claims still leave room.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaWatch the under-claimed branches
Implant hardware, AI-model architecture, and neural signal coding each show materially lower coverage than the G10L core — a reasonable place to test freedom-to-operate before committing R&D spend.
Run a white space analysis in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One academic assignee leads the ranking with 17 of the 96 records in scope, notably ahead of fifth place at 6 and tenth place at 4. That gap indicates a single institution built an early, broad portfolio rather than the field being evenly split among several similarly sized filers. The next four assignees together with the leader make up 53.1% of all records, so the top of the field is genuinely concentrated even though 33 assignees appear in the ranking overall.
Not currently. Filings rose from 10 in 2017 to a peak of 14 in 2020, then eased toward 7 by the 2022 midpoint, and several leading assignees show no filings in the most recent tracked year. Some of that recent-year drop is an artefact of publication lag, which typically runs around 18 months, so the very latest year will always look thinner than it eventually turns out to be. Even accounting for that lag, the trend since 2020 reads flat to declining rather than accelerating.
The dataset is overwhelmingly classified under G10L, speech and audio analysis and synthesis, which appears in 93.8% of the 96 records in scope. Diagnosis-and-surgery claims (A61B, 16.7%) and general data-processing claims (G06F, 8.3%) are the next most common overlaps, with implant-specific hardware (A61F) and AI-model-specific claims (G06N) each appearing in roughly one in twenty records. That pattern shows the field is currently defined more by signal-processing method claims than by implant hardware or model-architecture claims.
The United States accounts for the largest share of receiving-office filings at 42, followed by the European Patent Office at 22 and the WIPO PCT route at 11. India, Singapore and Canada each show single-digit counts. This distribution suggests applicants are prioritising US and European protection first, with PCT filings used to preserve broader international options before committing to additional national phases.
US20220301563A1, filed by The Regents of the University of California and published in September 2022, claims methods of decoding neural or optical cortical signals and extracting context-related and speech-related features from them for contextual and speech decoding. It is a broadly worded method claim rather than a narrow implementation, so it sits close to the core of the field's software approach. Anyone building a cortical speech-decoding pipeline should review its specific claim language carefully, since its scope potentially reaches implementations well beyond the exact system described in the specification.
Research Speech Neuroprosthesis Decoding in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole speech neuroprosthesis decoding 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.