Surgical Robot Motion Planning Patents: Who Leads, Trends 2026
- Filing has cooled since 2021. The field peaked at 75 families in 2021 and has declined since, with no assignee showing positive year-over-year momentum in the latest year on record.
- A61B dominates the classification mix. 448 of 532 records sit in A61B (diagnosis & surgery), with B25J manipulator claims and G06T imaging claims tied at 85 each — a much thinner second tier.
- The US anchors filing activity. 252 records were filed at the USPTO versus 101 at the EPO and 66 via WIPO/PCT, making US prosecution history the primary reference point for freedom-to-operate work.
Filing growth compares 2021 (75 records) with 2024 (44) — 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 532 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the filing record shows
Surgical robot motion planning sits at the intersection of robotics control and interventional medicine, and the classification spread reflects that: A61B (diagnosis and surgery) carries the bulk of the 532 families in this dataset, while B25J manipulator claims and G06T image-processing claims each account for 85 records. Electrotherapy (A61N), healthcare informatics (G16H) and body-fluid devices (A61M) form a second tier that shows motion planning claims are increasingly bundled with adjacent clinical functions rather than filed as pure kinematics.
Filing rose from 44 families in 2017 to a peak of 75 in 2021, then eased toward 5 by the most recent year on record. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the last one to two years understate true filing activity — but the decline from the 2021 peak through the 2022 midpoint of 59 is steep enough that it is unlikely to be an artefact of lag alone.
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 532-family dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how those families split across IPC subclasses.
A 2021 peak followed by decline
Filings climbed from 44 in 2017 to 75 in 2021, then fell back toward the 2022 midpoint of 59 and continued declining toward 5 in the most recent, still-partial year. Read the tail end of this trend as incomplete rather than as a genuine collapse in interest — publication lag means recent filings are still arriving.
A61B leads, B25J and G06T tied for second
A61B covers 448 of 532 records, confirming that most motion planning claims are framed as surgical method or device claims rather than standalone robotics claims. B25J (manipulators) and G06T (image processing) each hold 85 records, with A61N, G16H, A61M, G06F and G09B forming a long, thinner tail of adjacent functions.
Shares are the percentage of the 532 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Surgical Robot Motion Planning with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about surgical robot motion planning and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this dataset
Robotic surgery (US20220370139A1, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation)
Teleoperative, partially automated, and fully automated robotic surgery systems and methods are described herein. These systems and methods relate to at least improvement of robotic movements, three dimensional tracking and pose correction for robots interacting with deformable objects, controlling and optimizing the redundant axis of a seven degree of freedom robotic arm, virtual robotic surgery and simulation, and task coordination and optimization for multi-robot surgery.Filed by a hospital system rather than a device manufacturer, this filing shows clinical institutions actively claiming core motion-planning ground alongside the traditional robotics vendors.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20130345718A1 | Surgical robot platform | 780 |
| 2 | US20160302871A1 | Integrated medical imaging and surgical robotic system | 474 |
| 3 | US8560118B2 | Methods, devices, and systems for non-mechanically restricting and/or programming movement of a tool of a man… | 373 |
| 4 | US8282653B2 | System and methods for controlling surgical tool elements | 284 |
| 5 | US10695134B2 | Motion execution of a robotic system | 238 |
| 6 | US20170348061A1 | Surgical robot platform | 230 |
| 7 | WO2013192598A1 | Surgical robot platform | 215 |
| 8 | US9782229B2 | Surgical robot platform | 213 |
| 9 | US20110015649A1 | Surgical Guidance Utilizing Tissue Feedback | 212 |
| 10 | US20190005848A1 | Virtual reality training, simulation, and collaboration in a robotic surgical system | 163 |
Citation counts are drawn from the searched corpus and skew toward older, foundational filings; treat them as a measure of influence on later filers, 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 pattern means for a filing decision
Reading the trend and classification data together points to a field with dense prior art at its core and thinner coverage at the edges.
The growth phase is over, at least on paper
The run-up from 44 families in 2017 to 75 in 2021 marks an active claiming period; the decline since, through a 2022 midpoint of 59, suggests either market consolidation among filers or a pivot toward filing under different search terms as products mature. Recent-year momentum data show no assignee gaining share.
Motion planning claims ride inside surgical method claims
With A61B carrying the large majority of records, most motion planning innovation is being protected as part of a surgical device or method claim rather than as an independent robotics claim. That raises the bar for anyone trying to claim planning algorithms cleanly, since freedom-to-operate searches need to cover surgical-method prior art, not just B25J robotics art.
US filings set the reference art
Nearly half the dataset was filed at the USPTO, with Europe a distant second and PCT applications running behind both. Anyone clearing claims in this space should expect US prosecution history and file wrappers to carry the most weight, with European oppositions offering the next-best signal.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to surgical robot motion planning, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Vicarious Surgical Inc. | Auris Health, Inc. | 4 |
| NEUROARM SURGICAL | SUTHERLAND GARNETTE | 2 |
| NEUROARM SURGICAL | NEWHOOK PERRY | 2 |
| NEUROARM SURGICAL | GREER ALEXANDER | 2 |
| NEUROARM SURGICAL | FIELDING TIM | 2 |
Only five co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pairing links two named surgical robotics entities on four shared families — evidence that most motion planning IP here is developed and held by a single assignee rather than through joint ventures.
The assignee landscape
The ranking table (rendered separately) shows a field led by established surgical robotics names, but the momentum data tells a flatter story: no tracked assignee added families in the most recent year, and two show a full year-over-year drop to zero.
Every leading assignee has gone quiet in the latest window
Several of the most active historical filers, including large medical device and university assignees, show zero families in the latest tracked year, with two logging a full -100% year-over-year drop. Given publication lag, this likely reflects filings still working through the pipeline rather than a genuine exit from the space.
Joint filings are the exception, not the rule
The strongest co-assignee relationship links two surgical robotics entities across four shared families; the next-strongest pairs are inventor-institution links rather than corporate joint ventures. Most of the IP in this dataset is single-assignee work.
Clinical institutions are claiming core ground
The representative filing in this dataset comes from a hospital foundation, not a device manufacturer, covering pose correction, redundant-axis control and multi-robot task coordination. That signals device companies are not the only parties worth tracking for freedom-to-operate risk.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Globus Medical, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| KB Medical SA | 0 | — |
| Vicarious Surgical Inc. | 0 | — |
| Mobius Imaging, LLC | 0 | — |
| The Regents of the University of California | 0 | -100% |
| REMEDY ROBOTICS INC | 0 | — |
| Auris Health, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| NEUROARM SURGICAL | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with a dense, single-assignee core and a thinner set of adjacent branches worth checking individually.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on A61B claims
Because most motion planning claims are bundled inside surgical method claims rather than filed as standalone robotics claims, a clearance search limited to B25J will miss the bulk of the relevant prior art.
Start a claim search in EurekaTrack the momentum shift before committing to a strategy
With every leading assignee showing zero filings in the latest year, distinguishing genuine slowdown from publication lag matters before deciding whether this space is still worth entering aggressively.
Set up monitoring in EurekaLook at the under-claimed branches directly
Deformable-tissue pose correction, redundant-axis control and multi-robot coordination all show thinner filing density than the A61B core and may offer cleaner claim space.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The assignee ranking in this dataset is led by established surgical robotics companies alongside at least one major hospital-system filer, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Rather than naming a single dominant leader, the data shows filing concentrated among a small group of device manufacturers and research-hospital assignees, with a long tail of single-family filers behind them. Checking the full ranking table is more reliable than relying on any one headline name, since momentum has shifted even among the top historical filers.
Filing volume peaked at 75 families in 2021 and has declined since, reaching just 5 in the most recent, still-partial year. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years of data understate real activity, so the true 2025-2026 filing rate is likely higher than currently shown. Even accounting for that lag, the decline from the 2021 peak through the 2022 midpoint of 59 suggests the growth phase has passed rather than continued acceleration.
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) dominates with 448 of 532 records, meaning most motion planning claims are drafted as part of a surgical method or device claim rather than a pure robotics claim. B25J (manipulators and robots) and G06T (image data processing) each account for 85 records, forming a smaller but active second tier. Searches limited only to B25J robotics classifications will miss the majority of relevant prior art in this field.
Based on the classification spread, sub-areas like deformable-tissue pose correction, redundant-axis control for seven-degree-of-freedom arms, and multi-robot task coordination show meaningfully thinner filing density than the core A61B surgical-method claims. These branches appear in representative filings but have not accumulated the same density of prior art. That does not guarantee an easy grant, but it does mean the claim space is less crowded than the core.
The United States accounts for 252 of the records in this dataset, roughly double the European total of 101, with WIPO/PCT filings at 66. Germany and Australia each carry 19 records and China 18, forming a smaller but non-trivial tail. A clearance search should prioritise US prosecution history first, then EPO opposition and examination records, before checking the smaller national offices.
Research Surgical Robot Motion Planning in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole surgical robot motion planning 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.