Surgical Robot Manipulator Design Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- Filing peaked in 2020 at 11 families, then flattened toward the 2022 midpoint of 3 — this branch is not accelerating the way adjacent surgical robotics fields are.
- A61B and B25J dominate the IPC mix, 45 and 24 records respectively, meaning claims cluster on surgery-specific mechanisms and general manipulator kinematics rather than on implant integration or rehab crossover.
- One 2005-era filing carries 330 citations, an order of magnitude above anything filed since — a strong signal that foundational manipulator geometry is already staked out.
What this landscape covers
Surgical robot manipulator design sits at the intersection of two claim traditions: surgery-specific mechanisms classified under A61B, and general-purpose manipulator kinematics classified under B25J. The 52 families tracked here span remote-center-of-motion mechanisms, articulated instrument arms, and the linkages that connect them to a surgical console or cart. Filings arrive from six receiving offices, with the United States and the European Patent Office together accounting for the largest share of first filings.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2026 figure in any trend line is necessarily incomplete and should not be read as a drop-off. The more informative signal is the plateau between the 2020 peak and the 2022 midpoint, which suggests the field's core mechanical approaches — parallelogram arms, cable-driven remote centers, belt-and-pulley reducers — were substantially claimed before recent years began.
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 52 families: when the claims were filed, and which classification codes they fall under. Read together, they show a field that grew quickly to a mid-decade peak and has since settled into a narrower, more specialized set of mechanical claims.
A 2020 peak followed by a flat midpoint
Filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 11 in 2020, then eased back to 3 by the 2022 midpoint. That pattern is more consistent with an early land-grab on core mechanism geometry than with a technology still in its growth phase — later entrants are more likely filing around, not into, the busiest claim space.
A61B and B25J carry the field
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) appears in 45 of the 52 records and B25J (manipulators and robots) in 24, confirming that most claims describe surgery-specific hardware built on general manipulator kinematics. A61F (implants and prostheses) and A61H (physical therapy) each appear in single digits, marking them as adjacent but comparatively unclaimed.
Shares are the percentage of the 52 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Surgical Robot Manipulator Design with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about surgical robot manipulator design and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe filings setting the boundaries
Belt-type remote center of motion mechanism and robot for minimally invasive surgery equipped with this mechanism
A belt-type remote center of motion mechanism using an input link, paired pulleys, a belt-based power transmission member, and two reducers to translate rotation from an input link to an output link while preserving a fixed pivot point for the surgical instrument.Filed by Korea Institute of Science and Technology, published December 2025 — one of the newest records in this dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050043718A1 | Robotic apparatus | 330 |
| 2 | US20090030429A1 | Robotic apparatus | 32 |
| 3 | US20210030496A1 | Robotic arm having an extendable prismatic link | 31 |
| 4 | US20180000548A1 | Delta mechanism with enhanced torsional stiffness | 18 |
| 5 | WO2021046658A1 | A hybrid, direct-control and robotic-assisted surgical system | 12 |
| 6 | US20220395339A1 | A hybrid, direct-control and robotic-assisted surgical system | 9 |
| 7 | WO2021046657A1 | A stabilizing apparatus for supporting a surgical device | 5 |
| 8 | EP3771446A1 | Mechanical remote motion constraining mechanism | 5 |
| 9 | WO2021021200A1 | Robotic arm having an extendable prismatic link | 4 |
| 10 | US11553973B2 | Robotic arm having an extendable prismatic link | 2 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate references; treat them as a measure of influence on the field's vocabulary, 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 →What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once family counts, IPC codes and citation weight are read together. Each points to a different kind of decision: where prior art is dense, where it is thin, and how much weight to put on old, heavily-cited filings.
One early filing still anchors the field
US20050043718A1's citation count is roughly ten times the next most-cited record. Its claims on core robotic apparatus geometry likely underlie freedom-to-operate analysis for any new articulated-arm design.
Growth has flattened since 2020
The drop from an 11-family peak in 2020 to 3 at the 2022 midpoint indicates that the most obvious mechanical configurations were claimed early. New entrants face a narrower gap to file into without falling on existing art.
Surgical framing outweighs pure robotics framing
Nearly twice as many records classify under surgery-specific A61B as under general-purpose B25J, suggesting that successful claims tend to tie manipulator mechanics tightly to a surgical use case rather than filing on the mechanism alone.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to surgical robot manipulator design, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is open
Recent-year momentum across the tracked assignees shows a common pattern in this dataset: zero filings in the latest tracked year across every named entity, several with year-over-year declines of 100%. That is consistent with the 18-month publication lag rather than an actual stop in R&D, but it also means no single assignee is visibly pulling ahead right now.
No visible leader in recent filings
Every named assignee in the recent-momentum data shows zero filings in the most recent tracked year. Given the 18-month publication lag, this likely reflects filings still working through the pipeline rather than a genuine pause.
US and Europe lead filing venues
The United States and the European Patent Office together receive more first filings than WIPO, India, Australia and Canada combined, marking them as the primary venues for freedom-to-operate checks.
A fragmented assignee base
With 52 families spread across a wide set of named entities including university and hospital-affiliated applicants, no single company holds a commanding share of this landscape the way concentration appears in adjacent surgical robotics fields.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Wego Surgical | 0 | -100% |
| REVOLVE SURGICAL INC | 0 | — |
| Distalmotion | 0 | -100% |
| Johns Hopkins University | 0 | — |
| Shenzhen Edge Medical Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| BEIJING SURGERII ROBOTICS CO LTD | 0 | — |
| HARMONIC BIONICS INC | 0 | — |
| A Traction Inc. | 0 | — |
Taking this further
The trends above are a starting point, not a complete freedom-to-operate picture. Use them to decide where to look closer.
Check claim scope, not just counts
A high family count in A61B does not mean every mechanical configuration is blocked — pull the independent claims on the most-cited records before assuming a route is closed.
Explore claims in EurekaWatch the pipeline, not the plateau
The flat 2020-2022 trend may reverse once filings from the last 18 months finish publishing. Track new publications against the assignees already active here.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
This dataset tracks 52 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from records matching surgical robot, robotic surgery and robotic-assisted system terms combined with manipulator design and remote-center-of-motion mechanism terms. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true number of filings from the last year or so is understated in any count taken today. Families, rather than raw document counts, give the fairer picture since they neutralise duplicate filings across jurisdictions for the same invention.
The recent-momentum data in this dataset shows every named assignee, including Revolve Surgical, Beijing Surgerii Robotics, and university-affiliated applicants, at zero filings in the latest tracked year, so no single company currently shows clear year-over-year momentum. This most likely reflects the publication lag rather than an actual halt in filing activity. Reviewing the full assignee ranking alongside filing dates is a better way to judge sustained activity than any single recent year.
A remote center of motion mechanism constrains a surgical instrument to pivot around a fixed point in space, typically the incision site, without that pivot point being a physical joint on the robot arm. Designs in this dataset include belt-and-pulley systems, cable-driven linkages and parallelogram arms, each trading off stiffness, sterilizability and mechanical complexity differently. It is a foundational sub-mechanism referenced across most of the surgical manipulator arm patents in this landscape.
Filings rose to 11 families in 2020 before easing to 3 by the 2022 midpoint, a pattern more typical of an early land-grab on core mechanical configurations than of a technology still expanding. Once foundational geometries for remote-center mechanisms and articulated arms were claimed, later filers likely had to design around existing art rather than file broad claims into open space. The apparent decline after 2022 should be read cautiously given publication lag, but the plateau itself predates that lag window.
IPC composition data shows A61F (implants and prostheses) and A61H (physical therapy) appearing in only single digits compared with 45 records in A61B and 24 in B25J, marking implant-integrated manipulator interfaces and rehab-crossover articulated arms as comparatively thin. Cable-free remote-center linkages and torsional stiffness improvements to delta-style mechanisms also show less claim density than core remote-center-of-motion designs. These are starting points for a novelty search, not guarantees of open claim space.
Research Surgical Robot Manipulator Design in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole surgical robot manipulator design 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.