Surgical Robot Control System Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- Filing already peaked. 2017 recorded the high point at 57 families; the 2022 midpoint sits at 56, and the count has since drifted down toward single digits — this is a maturing claim space, not a growing one.
- Control claims cluster tightly. 656 of 723 families sit in A61B and 221 in B25J, meaning most protection is written around the surgical-manipulator hardware rather than the software or imaging layers that sit on top of it.
- The named leaders have gone quiet. Every top assignee in the momentum table, including the long-time leader, shows zero filings in the latest year — a sign that the core control-loop claims may already be settled rather than still being contested.
Filing growth compares 2021 (53 records) with 2024 (37) — 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 723 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 723 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine surgical robotics with teleoperation, master-slave, or motion-scaling control — the mechanisms that let a surgeon’s hand movements at a console translate into scaled, filtered motion at the instrument tip. It is a control-systems view of surgical robotics, not a full-market view: imaging-only or implant-only filings appear only where they intersect with a control claim.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in the trend chart are undercounts of what has actually been filed; treat the last two data points as provisional rather than as a real drop-off.
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 723 families: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A peak in 2017, then a flat-to-declining run
Filings hit 57 in 2017, the highest single year in the dataset. The 2022 midpoint of 56 is nearly identical, which rules out a simple growth story — this is a technology area with sustained but not expanding filing volume, now tapering in the most recent (and least complete) years.
Concentrated in surgical hardware, thin in software layers
A61B (656) and B25J (221) dominate, confirming that most claims describe the manipulator and instrument mechanics. G06F (54), G05B (41) and G16H (38) — the control-algorithm, regulation and informatics layers — are present but comparatively thin, and G06T (21, image processing) is thinner still relative to the hardware base.
Shares are the percentage of the 723 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Surgical Robot Control System with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about surgical robot control system and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this corpus
Augmented reality headset for a surgical robot
The patent describes an AR headset that overlays spatial, system and temporal context onto a surgical robotic system, rendering 3D virtual models of arms, instruments and bed that track the real system's position in the headset's coordinate frame, to help a wearer configure, operate or troubleshoot the robot before, during or after surgery.Filed by Auris Health and granted January 2025, this record sits outside the historic manipulator-claim cluster — it protects a visualization and situational-awareness layer rather than the motion-control loop itself.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US7155316B2 | Microsurgical robot system | 2,209 |
| 2 | US8491603B2 | Surgical manipulator | 1,151 |
| 3 | US9220570B2 | Automated surgical and interventional procedures | 1,058 |
| 4 | US8004229B2 | Software center and highly configurable robotic systems for surgery and other uses | 985 |
| 5 | US20070299427A1 | Surgical manipulator | 807 |
| 6 | US20070013336A1 | Software center and highly configurable robotic systems for surgery and other uses | 755 |
| 7 | US20070018958A1 | Force reflective robotic control system and minimally invasive surgical device | 745 |
| 8 | US20090036902A1 | Interactive user interfaces for robotic minimally invasive surgical systems | 642 |
| 9 | US8749190B2 | Software center and highly configurable robotic systems for surgery and other uses | 599 |
| 10 | US8816628B2 | Software center and highly configurable robotic systems for surgery and other uses | 571 |
Citation counts accumulate over time, so older families such as the 2006-era microsurgical robot patents lead the table by default; treat this as a map of foundational influence, not of current filing activity.
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 the raw counts are read as claim territory rather than as a scoreboard.
The peak has passed
Filing volume peaked in 2017 and the 2022 midpoint (56) shows no real growth beyond that peak. Combined with an 18-month publication lag, the recent taper is partly an artefact of reporting delay, but the flat middle years say the core control mechanisms were largely claimed by the early 2020s.
Hardware claims dominate
The overwhelming majority of families sit in surgical/diagnostic (A61B) and manipulator (B25J) classes. Software-adjacent classes — G06F, G05B, G16H — are present but each under 60 records, meaning the control-algorithm and informatics layers carry far less claim density than the mechanical layer they operate.
Named leaders have stopped filing
Every assignee in the recent-momentum table, including the long-standing leader, shows zero filings in the latest year. That does not mean the field is closed — it can also mean incumbents are relying on already-granted claims while newer entrants file under different search terms or in adjacent classes.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to surgical robot control system, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. | The Johns Hopkins University | 2 |
| Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. | THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV JOHNS HOPKINS TECH TRANSFER | 2 |
| Intuitive Surgical, Inc. | THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV JOHNS HOPKINS TECH TRANSFER | 2 |
Co-assignee pairing is rare in this dataset — three pairs total, all linking Intuitive Surgical entities with Johns Hopkins University and its tech-transfer office — suggesting most control-system IP here is developed and held internally rather than through university partnerships.
Who holds the ground, and where it is still open
Receiving-office data shows the United States (255) and Europe (187) carrying the bulk of filings, with WIPO/PCT (64), China (43) and Germany (43) forming a second tier — a filing footprint typical of a field where a small number of incumbents pursue broad jurisdictional coverage.
US and Europe carry the bulk of coverage
The United States and the European Patent Office together account for more than half of all receiving-office records, consistent with a small set of incumbents filing broad, multi-jurisdiction families around core manipulator and teleoperation mechanisms.
Foundational manipulator patents still anchor the field
The most-cited records date to the mid-2000s and describe core microsurgical robot and manipulator architectures. Their citation counts reflect two decades of accumulated influence rather than current filing activity, so newer entrants should read them as prior art to design around, not as a live competitive signal.
IP is held internally, not co-developed
Only three co-assignee pairings appear in the full dataset, all involving the same two organisations. That scarcity suggests most control-system patents in this space are prosecuted solely by the operating company rather than jointly with academic or clinical partners.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Shanghai MicroPort MedBot (Group) Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Intuitive Surgical, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Children's National Medical Center | 0 | — |
| The Johns Hopkins University | 0 | — |
| CMR Surgical Limited | 0 | — |
| Verb Surgical, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Medical Microinstruments, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this from here
The dataset points to a field where hardware claims are dense and software/control-layer claims are comparatively open.
Map a specific claim against this corpus
Run a candidate motion-scaling or master-slave control claim against the 723 families here to see how close it sits to the dense A61B/B25J cluster before drafting.
Explore this landscape in Eureka →Track the momentum shift in real time
Because the last two years are undercounted by publication lag, set up ongoing monitoring rather than relying on this snapshot alone to judge whether filing has truly slowed.
Set up monitoring in Eureka →Common questions about this landscape
The dataset's most-cited families, including US7155316B2 and US8491603B2, describe foundational microsurgical robot and manipulator architectures filed in the mid-2000s. Recent-year momentum data shows the leading assignees, including the long-established Intuitive Surgical entities, all recording zero filings in the latest year, which suggests the earliest and broadest teleoperation claims are already granted and being defended rather than actively expanded. Newer entrants should treat these foundational families as prior art to design around rather than as a moving target.
Not on this evidence. Filing peaked at 57 families in 2017, and the 2022 midpoint of 56 shows essentially no growth over that five-year span, with counts tapering toward the present. Some of the recent decline is a publication-lag artefact, since filings typically take about 18 months to appear in the record, but the flat middle years indicate the field reached a filing plateau well before the most recent taper.
The clearest gaps sit outside the dense A61B and B25J manipulator-hardware cluster, in the thinner software and informatics classes: G06F, G05B and G16H each carry well under a hundred records against a base of 656 and 221 in the two hardware classes. Practically, that points to force-feedback scaling algorithms, AR/VR situational-awareness overlays, autonomous sub-task control loops and multi-arm collision-avoidance logic as branches with shallower prior art. A first filing there faces less crowded claim territory than another manipulator-mechanics patent would.
US12186138B2, assigned to Auris Health and granted in January 2025, covers an augmented reality headset that renders spatially-fixed 3D models of a surgical robot's arms, instruments and bed, tracked to the real system's position, to help a wearer configure, operate or troubleshoot the robot. It sits in the visualization and situational-awareness layer rather than the core motion-control loop, so it constrains specific AR-headset implementations that mirror this spatial-tracking and rendering approach, not surgical robot teleoperation control generally. Anyone building an AR interface for a surgical robot should review its claims specifically, but it does not block motion-scaling or master-slave control work outside that visualization layer.
The United States (255 records) and the European Patent Office (187) carry the largest share of receiving-office activity in this dataset, followed by a second tier of WIPO/PCT (64), China (43) and Germany (43). That pattern is typical of a field led by a small number of incumbents pursuing broad, multi-jurisdiction protection, so a new filer competing on core control claims should expect to face prior art in both the US and Europe regardless of where they file first.
Research Surgical Robot Control System in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole surgical robot control system 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.