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/spinal-navigation-and-robotics-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Spine DevicesSpinal Navigation and Robotics Patents: Concentration, Momentum and Open Claim Space
- Concentrated at the top. the top 5 assignees account for 55.2% of all 67 records in scope, and the top 10 for 85.1% — a short list of companies has shaped most of the claim space.
- Filing has cooled off its 2021 peak. activity ran from 10 records in 2021 down to 2 in 2024, an -80% swing over that span, though 2025-2026 figures are still filling in due to publication lag.
- One IPC class dominates the field. A61B (diagnosis & surgery) appears in 95.5% of the 67 records, while robotics-specific B25J and imaging-informatics classes each sit under 15%, pointing to where the field is still thin.
67
Published Records
55%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-80%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (10 records) with 2024 (2) — 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 67 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What the patent record shows about spinal navigation and robotics
Spinal navigation and robotics sits at the intersection of surgical imaging, registration algorithms and robotic manipulation. The dataset covers 67 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026, searched against terms spanning registration methods, reference frames, screw breach rate, workflow time, radiation dose and cost justification — the practical metrics that decide whether a navigation or robotic system gets adopted in the operating room, not just whether it works in a lab. Patent families, not raw filings, are the fairer unit here because they neutralise continuation practice and multi-jurisdiction filing strategies common among the larger medical device assignees.
Filing activity peaked in 2021 and has since declined through the last complete year of data, 2024, though the most recent two years are understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. The receiving-office spread — concentrated in the United States, WIPO and Europe — tracks the major device markets rather than any single national push.
Filing activity by year, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Spinal Navigation and Robotics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 67 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A 2021 peak, then a step down
Filings rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 10 in 2021, then fell to 2 by 2024 — an -80% change over that three-year window. Treat 2025 and 2026 as incomplete rather than as evidence of a further slide, since publication lag means recent filings have not all surfaced yet.
A61B dominates; robotics and informatics classes are thin
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) covers 95.5% of the 67 records, confirming this is fundamentally a surgical-instrument field. G16H (healthcare informatics, 14.9%), G06T (image processing, 11.9%) and H04N (pictorial communication, 10.4%) show a secondary cluster around image-driven registration, while B25J (manipulators & robots, 6.0%) and A61F (implants, 6.0%) remain comparatively under-claimed relative to how much attention robotic spine systems get commercially.
Shares are the percentage of the 67 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 Spinal Navigation and Robotics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Spinal Navigation and Robotics with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about spinal navigation and robotics and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative and most-cited filings
Representative Filing
Image registration method and device, and orthopedic surgery navigation system based on image registration
TINAVI MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
The method generates an initial object posture and initial front/lateral postures of an X-ray machine, performs registration optimization on the object posture and on the lateral posture, and integrates the resulting target postures with the initial front posture to complete registration — a workflow aimed at reducing the manual alignment steps that drive up radiation dose and workflow time in image-guided spine surgery.Filed by Tinavi Medical Technologies, published 2025-03-27.
Most-cited records in the dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6782287B2 | Method and apparatus for tracking a medical instrument based on image registration | 605 |
| 2 | US20020077543A1 | Method and apparatus for tracking a medical instrument based on image registration | 275 |
| 3 | US20110218546A1 | Device for controlled adjustment of a surgical positioning unit | 80 |
| 4 | US8974460B2 | Device for controlled adjustment of a surgical positioning unit | 50 |
| 5 | US20210282862A1 | Robotic surgical system | 46 |
| 6 | US20240041558A1 | Video-guided placement of surgical instrumentation | 37 |
| 7 | WO2002000103A2 | Method and apparatus for tracking a medical instrument based on image registration | 34 |
| 8 | US20200197100A1 | Systems and methods for performing intraoperative surface-based registration and navigation | 31 |
| 9 | US20210045813A1 | Systems, devices, and methods for surgical navigation with anatomical tracking | 17 |
| 10 | US20180368918A1 | Utilization of laser interstitial thermotherapy guided with real time thermal MRI | 13 |
Citation counts reward older filings simply for having more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
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 Spinal Navigation and Robotics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. 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 numbers mean for a filing decision
Three findings that shape where a new filer should and should not spend claim-drafting effort.
Concentration
55.2% / 85.1%
top 5 / top 10 share of 67 records
A short list of assignees shaped most of the field
The top 5 assignees account for 55.2% of all 67 records in scope, and the top 10 for 85.1%. With 28 companies ranked in total, that leaves a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants competing for the remaining share — a pattern typical of a field anchored by a handful of established navigation and robotics platforms.
Ranking covers 28 companies, not a top-50 or top-100 cut.
Momentum
10 → 2
records, 2021 to 2024
Filing has stepped down from its 2021 peak
Records fell from a peak of 10 in 2021 to 2 in 2024, an -80% change over that span. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025-2026 numbers are still incomplete and should not be read as confirmation the field has gone quiet.
2024 is the most recent year treated as complete.
Technology mix
95.5% vs 6.0%
A61B share vs B25J share of 67 records
Robotics-specific claims are thin relative to surgical claims
A61B covers 95.5% of records, confirming the field is anchored in surgical instrumentation and navigation. B25J, the manipulator/robotics class, appears in only 6.0% of records — a gap worth noting for anyone filing robotic manipulation claims specifically rather than navigation or registration claims.
Classes overlap; shares sum to more than 100%.
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 spinal navigation and robotics, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Spinal Navigation and Robotics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who holds the claim space, and where it thins out
The leader in the ranking holds 11 records; fifth place holds 4 and tenth place also holds 4 — a steep drop after the top few names, then a plateau across the rest of the ranked group.
Leader
11 records
leading assignee
One assignee well ahead of the rest
The top-ranked assignee holds 11 of the 67 records, roughly double the fifth-place count of 4. That gap suggests an early and sustained filing programme rather than a single burst of activity.
Based on the 28-company assignee ranking.
Mid-field
4 records
fifth and tenth place
A plateau, not a steady decline
Fifth place and tenth place both hold 4 records each, meaning the drop-off from the leader happens fast and then the field flattens across a wide group of similarly sized filers through the top 10.
Top 10 combined: 85.1% of all 67 records.
Collaboration
10 pairs
co-assignee pairings
Research institutes and device makers file together
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with the strongest links running between a national research centre, a national health-research institute and a spine-device specialist — evidence that some of the more academically-driven filings in this space are joint efforts rather than solo corporate programmes.
Strongest pairs recur at 4 shared records each.
Recent-year momentum has gone flat across named leaders
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| 3Spine Inc. | 0 | — |
| BLUE ORTHO | 0 | — |
| 7D Surgical ULC | 0 | — |
| Medtronic Navigation, Inc. | 0 | — |
| The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University | 0 | — |
| Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) | 0 | — |
| Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Spinal Navigation and Robotics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy, or spotting a filing opportunity.
Check freedom-to-operate against the most-cited records
The highest-cited filings in this dataset centre on image-registration tracking and controlled positioning-unit adjustment — both foundational to nearly any navigation or robotic workflow. Any new registration or reference-frame method should be checked against these specifically.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaMap the under-claimed branches before drafting
B25J robotics claims and radiation-dose workflow claims sit well below the field's overall filing density. A first-filer advantage may still be available in those specific sub-areas rather than in the crowded A61B core.
Explore white space in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Spinal Navigation and Robotics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about spinal navigation and robotics patents
The assignee ranking covers 28 companies built from 67 published records, and it is concentrated rather than evenly spread: the top 5 assignees combined hold 55.2% of all records, and the top 10 hold 85.1%. The single leading assignee holds 11 records, well ahead of fifth place at 4. This means a small number of established medical device and navigation companies have shaped most of the claim space, while the remainder of the ranking consists of companies with only a handful of filings each.
Filing activity peaked in 2021 at 10 records and had fallen to 2 records by 2024, an -80% change over that three-year window. However, because patent publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset are necessarily incomplete and should not be read as proof the field is cooling further. The safest read is that the field passed a filing peak around 2021 and has settled to a lower but still active rate through the last complete year of data.
The overwhelming majority — 95.5% of the 67 records — carry the A61B classification for diagnosis and surgery, confirming this is fundamentally a surgical-instrumentation field. Secondary clusters appear around healthcare informatics (G16H, 14.9%), image data processing (G06T, 11.9%) and pictorial communication or video (H04N, 10.4%), reflecting the role of image-guided registration. Robotics-specific manipulator claims (B25J) and implant-integration claims (A61F) each appear in only 6.0% of records, which is comparatively thin given how central robotic manipulation is to commercial systems.
Based on the IPC composition, the clearest gaps sit in robotic manipulator kinematics (B25J, only 6.0% of records), radiation-dose reduction workflows, and implant-integrated navigation feedback (A61F, also 6.0%) — all filed at much lower density than the dominant A61B surgical-instrument claims. Video-based intraoperative registration under H04N also remains a relatively open sub-area at 10.4%. These are not guarantees of a clean freedom-to-operate position, but they are areas where the existing claim density is measurably lower than the field average.
Both patterns appear in the data. Ten co-assignee pairs exist across the dataset, with the strongest recurring links involving a national research centre, a national health-research institute and a spine-device specialist, each pairing appearing on 4 shared records. This suggests a meaningful share of the more research-driven filings — particularly around registration methods and reference frames — are joint efforts between academic or public research bodies and commercial device makers, rather than filed by either type of entity alone.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Spinal Navigation and Robotics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Spinal Navigation and Robotics in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole spinal navigation and robotics 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.