Surgical Navigation AI Patents: Who Leads, Where Filings Cooled 2026
- Filing activity peaked in 2020 at 38 families and has since flattened rather than kept climbing, with 2022 sitting at 30 and the trend roughly flat into the most recent data.
- Registration and segmentation claims dominate citations the five most-cited records are all built around image-guided registration or automated anatomical segmentation, not general AI methods.
- Momentum has swung to near zero for several established filers multiple assignees show 0 families in the latest year and a -100% year-over-year change, opening room for new entrants.
Filing growth compares 2021 (25 records) with 2024 (17) — 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 211 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the patent record shows
Surgical navigation AI sits at the intersection of image-guided surgery and machine learning, and the patent record reflects that split cleanly. A61B (diagnosis and surgery) covers 202 of 211 records, while G06T (image data processing) appears in 98 — together confirming that most claims are anchored in surgical hardware and workflow, with the vision or learning component layered on top rather than filed as a standalone software claim. Healthcare informatics (G16H, 28 records) and implants (A61F, 25) form smaller but persistent secondary clusters, and optical systems (G02B) and velocity/acceleration sensing (G01P) each register a modest single-digit-to-low-double-digit presence.
Filing office data shows the United States receiving the large majority of filings (120), well ahead of Europe (30), the PCT route (26), Australia (13), Canada (10) and China (5). That concentration, combined with a filing curve that rose sharply from 2017 through 2020 and then leveled off, suggests a field that established its core claim territory early and is now seeing incremental rather than exploratory filing. Publication lag of roughly 18 months means the most recent year's count is understated and should not be read as a real decline yet.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 211-family dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how those families distribute across IPC subclasses.
A rise-then-plateau filing curve
Annual filings grew from 6 in 2017 to a peak of 38 in 2020, then eased toward 30 by 2022 and roughly held there. This is a plateau pattern, not a growth story — the technology's core claim space filled early, and later years show maintenance-level filing rather than expansion.
Concentrated in surgical hardware, layered with vision processing
A61B and G06T together account for the bulk of the corpus, confirming that surgical navigation AI patents are still primarily surgical-device filings with an image-processing or machine-learning layer, rather than software patents that happen to mention surgery.
Shares are the percentage of the 211 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Surgical Navigation AI and Machine Learning with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about surgical navigation ai and machine learning and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited filings and a recent representative claim
Machine learning system and method for real-time image-based anatomy segmentation (US20260224207A1)
A method for real-time surgical navigation, including: capturing an intraoperative image stream from a distal portion of an endoscopic instrument inserted into a patient's body; processing the intraoperative image stream with a machine learning-based segmentation algorithm configured to identify anatomical structures; and outputting segmentation data indicating the anatomical structures within the image stream.Filed by Robotron Surgical IP Holding LLC, published 2026-08-06 — one of the newest entries in the corpus and a useful marker of where current claim drafting is headed: real-time, endoscopic, ML-based segmentation rather than static pre-operative image registration.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20180240237A1 | Systems and Methods of Registration for Image-Guided Surgery | 270 |
| 2 | US20180235709A1 | Systems and Methods of Registration for Image-Guided Surgery | 219 |
| 3 | US20190142519A1 | Graphical user interface for displaying automatically segmented individual parts of anatomy in a surgical nav… | 151 |
| 4 | US20200375666A1 | Systems and methods for augmented reality based surgical navigation | 141 |
| 5 | US10706543B2 | Systems and methods of registration for image-guided surgery | 96 |
| 6 | US20220151704A1 | Co-registration for augmented reality and surgical navigation | 84 |
| 7 | US20200364865A1 | Systems and methods of registration for image-guided surgery | 80 |
| 8 | US20190133693A1 | Surgical navigation of the hip using fluoroscopy and tracking sensors | 77 |
| 9 | US20170151021A1 | System and method for using a haptic device as an input device | 53 |
| 10 | US20220104884A1 | Image-Guided Surgery System | 43 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply by virtue of longer exposure in the corpus; treat these as markers of influence on subsequent filers, 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
Three patterns stand out once family counts, citation weight and filing geography are read together.
Growth has stalled, not stopped
The jump from 6 families in 2017 to 38 in 2020 marks the field's build-out phase. The subsequent settle to around 30 by 2022 indicates the core claim territory around registration and segmentation is largely staked out, and new filings now compete for narrower ground.
Registration claims anchor the field's citation graph
The most-cited records in the corpus are all variants of image-guided surgery registration methods, with counts well above other records. Anyone filing near registration or segmentation claims should expect to be examined against this cluster first.
Filing strategy is US-first by a wide margin
With 120 US filings against 30 at the EPO, 26 via PCT, and single-digit-to-low-teens counts in Australia, Canada and China, the current patent record is built overwhelmingly around US commercial priority, leaving China in particular thinly covered relative to its clinical device market.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to surgical navigation ai and machine learning, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is active, and who has pulled back
Recent-year momentum diverges sharply from historical filing volume: several assignees with established portfolios show no filings in the latest year, while co-assignee activity clusters around a small number of corporate pairings.
Established assignees have gone quiet
Multiple long-standing assignees in this space, including major orthopaedic and surgical robotics names, show zero families in the latest year and a -100% year-over-year change. That does not necessarily mean exit from the field — it may reflect the 18-month publication lag — but it does mean their most recent public claim positions are aging.
Activity has shifted toward smaller, newer filers
Where large incumbents show no recent filings, at least one newer-named entity shows continued, if modest, activity in the latest year. This is consistent with a plateaued field where large players consolidate existing claims while smaller entrants test adjacent ground.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated in one corporate family
Only three co-assignee pairs appear in the corpus, and all three involve the same cluster of related Smith & Nephew entities. This suggests joint filing is largely an artefact of corporate structure rather than a sign of active cross-company collaboration in this field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Marko Surgical Corporation | 1 | — |
| MAHFOUZ MOHAMED R | 0 | — |
| Globus Medical, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Smith & Nephew Asia Pacific Pte. Limited | 0 | -100% |
| Smith & Nephew, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Smith & Nephew Orthopaedics AG | 0 | — |
| TECHMAH MEDICAL LLC | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio benchmarking or identifying open claim space.
Check freedom-to-operate against the registration cluster
Any filing touching image-guided registration or automated segmentation should be checked against the most-cited records in this corpus first, since they anchor the densest prior-art neighbourhood.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaWatch for renewed filing from quiet incumbents
Several assignees show a sharp drop to zero in the latest year; given publication lag, some of that may reverse once pending filings publish. Monitoring these accounts directly is more reliable than reading the plateau as permanent.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaExplore the under-claimed branches before drafting
Surgical phase recognition, soft-tissue registration learning and real-time endoscopic segmentation all show thinner coverage than the core registration cluster and may offer more open claim space.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about surgical navigation AI patents
The most-cited records in this corpus are all variants of image-guided surgery registration methods, led by filings such as US20180240237A1 and US20180235709A1, both titled around registration systems and methods for image-guided surgery. These citation counts reflect years of accumulated influence within the corpus rather than current market share, since older filings naturally accumulate more citations. A newer entrant should still expect examiners to cite this cluster heavily when reviewing registration or segmentation claims.
Filing activity rose sharply from 6 families in 2017 to a peak of 38 in 2020, then eased to around 30 by 2022 and has broadly held at that level since. That pattern reads as a plateau rather than continued growth — the core claim territory around registration and segmentation appears largely staked out. Because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, the very latest year's count is understated and should not be read as an actual downturn yet.
A61B, covering diagnosis and surgery devices, appears in 202 of the 211 records in this dataset, making it the dominant classification by a wide margin. G06T, covering image data processing and generation, appears in 98 records, reflecting the vision and machine-learning layer built on top of surgical hardware claims. Secondary clusters appear in G16H (healthcare informatics), A61F (implants), G02B (optics) and G01P (velocity/acceleration sensing), each worth checking depending on the specific sub-technology being filed.
Relative to the dense registration and segmentation cluster, sub-areas such as surgical phase recognition from video, real-time endoscopic anatomy segmentation, and registration learning tuned for soft-tissue deformation show thinner coverage in this dataset. Velocity- and acceleration-based instrument tracking (G01P, 8 records) and augmented-reality intraoperative overlays also register lower counts than the core A61B/G06T cluster. These are reasonable areas to investigate further before assuming the space is fully claimed, though a formal freedom-to-operate search remains necessary before filing.
Several established assignees in this corpus show zero families in the latest year and a -100% year-over-year change, which can look like withdrawal from the field. In most cases this is better explained by the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication, meaning recent filings from these companies may simply not be visible yet. It is also possible some incumbents have shifted filing strategy toward related classifications not captured by this specific search, so a drop in one dataset view should be confirmed against a broader search before concluding a company has exited.
Research Surgical Navigation AI and Machine Learning in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole surgical navigation ai and machine learning 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.