Upper Limb Exoskeleton Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 71.2% of all 59 records sit with just five assignees — this is a field with a narrow leadership group, not a fragmented one.
- Filings nearly tripled from 2021 to 2024 (+200%), the last span the data treats as complete once publication lag is accounted for.
- A61H dominates at 74.6% of records, but fluid-pressure actuation (F15B) and clutch/brake mechanisms (F16D) sit under 10% each — narrow, specific claim territory still open.
Filing growth compares 2021 (1 records) with 2024 (3) — 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 59 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the patent record shows about upper limb rehabilitation exoskeletons
Upper limb rehabilitation exoskeletons sit at the intersection of physical therapy hardware and robotic manipulation, and the patent record reflects that split: most filings claim therapy-delivery mechanisms under A61H, while a smaller but substantial share claim the underlying manipulator or actuator architecture under B25J. The dataset in scope covers 59 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from a search string targeting joint alignment, gravity compensation, workspace coverage, donning time, training protocol and reaching-task claims specifically.
Filing activity peaked in 2018 at seven records and has continued at a lower but rising pace since, with growth concentrated among a small number of repeat filers. Receiving-office data shows the United States as the single largest filing venue, ahead of Europe, Canada, India, the WIPO PCT route and China.
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 59-record dataset: filing activity over time, and the IPC subclasses that carry the claims.
A rebound after a mid-decade peak
Filings peaked at seven records in 2018, dipped, then rose again, with 2021 to 2024 showing a documented +200% increase (1 to 3 records). Treat 2025 and 2026 as undercounts: publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so recent years will keep filling in.
Therapy delivery dominates, actuation detail is thinner
A61H (physical therapy & massage) appears in 74.6% of the 59 records, with B25J (manipulators & robots) at 44.1% and A61F (implants & prostheses) at 39.0%. Mechanical actuation classes — F15B fluid-pressure systems, F16D clutches and brakes, F01B reciprocating machines — each sit under 10%, marking the mechanism layer as comparatively under-claimed relative to the therapy-application layer.
Shares are the percentage of the 59 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Upper Limb Rehabilitation Exoskeletons with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about upper limb rehabilitation exoskeletons and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this dataset
Wearable gravity compensation apparatus capable of multiple degrees of freedom of movement
Filed by the Agency for Defense Development, this record describes a back-mounted main frame with a base link and front/rear extension links rotating around intersecting axes, plus a slider-guided mechanism positioned above the base link — a mechanical approach to distributing gravity compensation across multiple degrees of freedom without a bulky counterweight.Published 2021-09-30 · US20210299854A1
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20100016766A1 | Robotic rehabilitation apparatus and method | 77 |
| 2 | US20080304935A1 | Robotic exoskeleton for limb movement | 51 |
| 3 | US20200069441A1 | Exoskeleton, orthosis, wearable device or mobile robots using magnetorheological fluid clutch apparatus | 39 |
| 4 | US8317730B2 | Robotic rehabilitation apparatus and method | 38 |
| 5 | WO2008131563A1 | Robotic exoskeleton for limb movement | 37 |
| 6 | WO2018218336A1 | Exoskeleton, orthosis, wearable device or mobile robots using magnetorheological fluid clutch apparatus | 36 |
| 7 | US20170231787A1 | Actuator device, power assist robot and humanoid robot | 30 |
| 8 | WO2019033001A1 | Dexterous hand exoskeleton | 28 |
| 9 | KR1020160071661A | Upper limb exoskeleton robot for movement improvement and gravity compensation | 27 |
| 10 | US20130030327A1 | Robotic Rehabilitation Apparatus and Method | 26 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they are not a measure of current claim strength.
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 findings shape where a new filing would land relative to existing claims.
Leadership is narrow, not fragmented
Five assignees hold 71.2% of the 59 records in scope, and the top 10 combined reach 98.3%. A new entrant is not filing into open ground occupied by dozens of small players — it is filing against a small group whose combined portfolios cover almost the entire dataset.
Growth is real but recent and small in absolute terms
Filings rose from 1 to 3 records between 2021 and 2024. That is meaningful percentage growth off a low base, not evidence of a filing surge; 2025-2026 figures will rise further as publication catches up but cannot yet be read as a trend reversal or slowdown.
Actuation mechanics are thinly claimed
A61H therapy-delivery claims cover 74.6% of records, but the fluid-pressure actuator (F15B, 8.5%) and clutch/brake (F16D, 5.1%) classes that would underpin specific mechanical implementations remain comparatively open, alongside reciprocating-machine claims (F01B, 3.4%).
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to upper limb rehabilitation exoskeletons, with the prior art for and against each one.
The assignee landscape
Thirty companies and inventors appear in the ranking, but activity concentrates sharply at the top — a pattern that matters as much for where to partner as for where to avoid direct claim conflict.
A single filer sets the pace
The leading assignee holds 12 of the 59 records in scope, more than double the fifth-place holder's 5. That gap suggests one organisation has built a genuinely broad portfolio rather than a single flagship filing.
A small inventor cluster files together repeatedly
Nine co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with three names — recurring in combinations of three — showing up together three times each. This points to a stable inventing team rather than one-off collaborations.
Past leaders show no filings in the most recent year
Several of the assignees with the largest historical portfolios show zero filings in the latest year of the dataset. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this is not yet evidence of exit from the field, but it does mean recent momentum sits with names outside the historical top ranks.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Fundacion Fatronik | 0 | — |
| Queen's University | 0 | — |
| Exonetik Inc | 0 | — |
| Rehabtek LLC | 0 | — |
| ATR Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International | 0 | — |
| SCOTT STEPHEN H | 0 | — |
| BROWN IAN E | 0 | — |
| BALL STEPHEN J | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next questions rather than a single conclusion.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top 5
With 71.2% of records held by five assignees, any new filing in gravity-compensation or reaching-task claims should be checked directly against their portfolios before drafting.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaWatch the actuation-mechanism gap
F15B and F16D claim shares are both under 10% of records, suggesting mechanical implementation details are less crowded than the therapy-application layer above them.
Run a white space search in EurekaRe-run the trend once 2025-2026 fills in
Publication lag means the most recent two years understate real filing activity; revisit the 2021-2024 growth trend once more data is available.
Track filing trends in EurekaCommon questions about upper limb exoskeleton patents
The dataset's leading assignee holds 12 of the 59 records in scope, noticeably ahead of the fifth-ranked assignee at 5 records. The top five assignees together account for 71.2% of all records, and the top ten reach 98.3%, meaning the field's claim territory is dominated by a small group rather than spread evenly across the 30 ranked assignees. Anyone entering this space should map their planned claims against that top group first, since they cover nearly the entire published record set.
Filings grew from 1 to 3 records between 2021 and 2024, a documented +200% increase over that span, which is the most recent period the data treats as complete. Figures for 2025 and 2026 appear lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than an actual slowdown. The honest read is renewed growth through 2024, with the most recent two years still filling in.
A61H, physical therapy and massage apparatus, appears in 74.6% of the 59 records and is the dominant class. B25J, manipulators and robots, follows at 44.1%, and A61F, implants and prostheses, at 39.0%. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, these percentages add up to more than 100% — the useful reading is relative weight, not a partition of the dataset.
The mechanical actuation layer is comparatively thin: F15B fluid-pressure actuators appear in only 8.5% of records, F16D clutches and brakes in 5.1%, and F01B reciprocating machines in 3.4%. These sit well below the dominant A61H therapy-delivery claims, suggesting that specific actuator and transmission implementations carry lighter documented coverage than the broader therapy-application claims layered on top of them.
US20210299854A1, filed by the Agency for Defense Development, describes a back-mounted gravity compensation frame using a base link, front and rear extension links rotating around intersecting axes, and a slider-guided mechanism above the base link. It represents one specific mechanical route to multi-degree-of-freedom gravity compensation without a counterweight. A new filing using a materially different linkage geometry or a fluid-pressure or clutch-based compensation approach would sit outside its specific claim scope, though a full freedom-to-operate check requires reading the granted claims directly.
Research Upper Limb Rehabilitation Exoskeletons in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole upper limb rehabilitation exoskeletons 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.