X-Ray Sources and Detectors Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- Filing peaked in 2019 at 181 records, then activity from 2021 to 2024 fell 52%, from 108 to 52 filings — a genuine pullback, not a publication-lag artifact.
- The top 5 assignees hold 32.9% of all 2,359 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 45.0% — concentrated, but with a long tail of single-digit filers behind them.
- A61B and G01N dominate the IPC mix, at 55.6% and 22.1% of records respectively, while G21K particle-handling claims sit under 11% — a narrower, less-crowded branch.
Filing growth compares 2021 (108 records) with 2024 (52) — 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 2,359 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families filed against X-ray tubes, flat panel detectors and microfocus sources, narrowed to records that also address a practical constraint — focal spot size, tube lifetime, dynamic range, detector lag, cooling requirement or cost of ownership. That combination matters: it separates general X-ray imaging patents from filings that engage with the engineering trade-offs inspection and diagnostic systems actually face in production. The result is 2,359 records published between 2015 and mid-2026, spanning medical, industrial and semiconductor inspection use cases that share the same underlying hardware problem.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend line are still filling in and should not be read as a current slowdown. The 2021-to-2024 window is the most recent stretch that can be treated as complete, and it shows a real decline in filing volume rather than an artifact of the data cut-off.
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
Filing volume, receiving-office distribution and IPC composition together show where activity concentrates and where it has thinned out.
A 2019 peak followed by a real pullback
Filings rose from 69 in 2017 to a peak of 181 in 2019, then declined through the most recent complete year: 108 in 2021 down to 52 in 2024, a 52% drop over that three-year span. The 2025–2026 figures are understated by publication lag and should not be read alongside that decline.
Diagnosis and material-analysis classes dominate
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) appears on 55.6% of the 2,359 records and G01N (material analysis & testing) on 22.1%, reflecting the medical and industrial-inspection overlap in this search. G21K (particle & radiation handling) and H05G (X-ray technique) sit lowest among the tracked classes, at 10.6% and 11.6% respectively — narrower claim territory relative to the imaging-heavy classes above them.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,359 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on X-Ray Sources and Detectors for Inspection with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about x-ray sources and detectors for inspection and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
US6868138B2 — Extended dynamic range from flat panel detector data
A method, processor and computed tomography machine for generating images using high- and low-sensitivity data collected from a flat panel detector with extended dynamic range. Hardware modifications group pixel rows and columns into clusters of two, with optical masks of differing transparency changing row/column sensitivity. Software modifications take two correlated exposure scans at each angle and combine them into one scan before image reconstruction, using a spatially varying pixel exposure scheme.Filed by the Regents of the University of Michigan; granted 2005-03-15.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US7106825B2 | Apparatus and method for reconstruction of volumetric images in a divergent scanning computed tomography syst… | 430 |
| 2 | US6842502B2 | Cone beam computed tomography with a flat panel imager | 416 |
| 3 | US6823207B1 | Integrated fluoroscopic surgical navigation and imaging workstation with command protocol | 390 |
| 4 | US5864146A | System for quantitative radiographic imaging | 385 |
| 5 | US20040076259A1 | Integrated fluoroscopic surgical navigation and workstation with command protocol | 380 |
| 6 | US7099428B2 | High spatial resolution X-ray computed tomography (CT) system | 350 |
| 7 | US20090161827A1 | Methods and devices for detecting, controlling, and predicting radiation delivery | 332 |
| 8 | US6480565B1 | Apparatus and method for cone beam volume computed tomography breast imaging | 331 |
| 9 | US7460637B2 | High spatial resolution X-ray computed tomography (CT) method and system | 312 |
| 10 | US6895077B2 | System and method for x-ray fluoroscopic imaging | 278 |
Citation counts favour older records simply by virtue of time in the corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current 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 filing pattern tells you
Three findings stand out once volume, concentration and technology mix are read together.
The decline is real, not a lag artifact
Filings fell from 108 in 2021 to 52 in 2024 — the last year the dataset can treat as complete. That is a genuine three-year pullback in a field that peaked in 2019 at 181 records, and it predates the publication-lag window that makes 2025–2026 look artificially thin.
Leadership is concentrated but not locked down
The top 5 assignees combine for 32.9% of all records and the top 10 for 45.0%, leaving more than half the field to a long tail of smaller filers. That tail is where freedom-to-operate work typically needs the closest attention, since it is less mapped by prior competitive-intelligence exercises.
Particle and radiation handling is the thinnest major class
Against A61B at 55.6% and G01N at 22.1%, G21K (particle & radiation handling) covers just 10.6% of the 2,359 records. Claim space tied specifically to radiation-handling hardware, rather than imaging or diagnosis, is comparatively less occupied.
The most-cited work predates the current filing wave
The highest-cited records in the dataset relate to cone-beam CT reconstruction and flat panel imaging architectures filed well before the 2019 peak. Their citation counts reflect years in the corpus more than current technical relevance, and newer filings addressing dynamic range and detector lag have not yet had time to accumulate comparable counts.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to x-ray sources and detectors for inspection, with the prior art for and against each one.
Leaders, momentum and where claim space is still open
The ranked leaders span imaging OEMs, a semiconductor inspection specialist and academic assignees, with filing activity across the group slowing in the most recent tracked year.
A single filer holds a clear lead
The top-ranked assignee accounts for 312 records, well ahead of the fifth-place filer at 87 and the tenth-place filer at 48. That gap between first and fifth place is the steepest drop in the ranking.
Several top filers show no activity in the latest tracked year
Multiple assignees among the leading filers, including one with a -100% year-over-year change, show zero filings in the most recent year of the dataset. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this understates true current activity but is still worth watching across the next data refresh.
Co-assignee activity is limited and clustered
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pairing recurs across three separate combinations involving the same corporate assignee with different named inventors. Co-filing is not a major structural feature of this field; most records carry a single corporate assignee.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Canon | 0 | — |
| KLA Corp | 0 | -100% |
| University of Rochester | 0 | — |
| Fujifilm Corp | 0 | — |
| Konica Minolta Medical & Graphics Inc | 0 | — |
| Accuray Inc | 0 | — |
| General Electric Co | 0 | — |
| Konica Corp | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, competitive tracking or identifying open claim space.
Map the long tail below the top 10
With 45.0% of records held by the top 10 assignees, the remaining 55% is spread across a long tail that general competitive scans tend to miss. A dedicated pull of that tail is often where overlooked freedom-to-operate risk sits.
Explore the full assignee ranking in Eureka →Track the under-claimed IPC branches
G21K and H05G sit below 12% of records each, while imaging-adjacent classes dominate. Watching filing velocity in these narrower branches over the next few quarters shows whether they stay open.
Set up class-level tracking in Eureka →Re-run the trend once 2025–2026 data matures
Because publication lag understates the two most recent years, the 2021–2024 decline should be re-checked once later filings finish publishing. A refreshed pull will confirm whether the pullback continued or reversed.
Schedule a refreshed pull in Eureka →Common questions about this landscape
One assignee leads the ranked field with 312 records, well ahead of the fifth-place filer at 87 and the tenth at 48. The top 5 assignees together account for 32.9% of all 2,359 records in scope, and the top 10 for 45.0%, which means the field is concentrated at the top but still leaves more than half the records spread across a long tail of smaller filers. Anyone doing competitive tracking should watch both the leader's filing pace and that tail, since new entrants tend to surface there first.
Filing peaked in 2019 at 181 records and declined over the following years; the most recent complete comparison shows 108 filings in 2021 falling to 52 in 2024, a 52% drop. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so they should not be read as evidence of a further slowdown yet. Based on the complete years available, the honest read is a real pullback from the 2019 high rather than a plateau.
The dominant classes are A61B (diagnosis & surgery), covering 55.6% of the 2,359 records, and G01N (material analysis & testing) at 22.1%, reflecting how this search spans medical and industrial inspection uses. G01T, G06T and H04N each cover meaningful shares tied to radiation measurement, image processing and video transmission respectively. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to well over 100% and should not be compared to each other as if they were mutually exclusive segments.
Relative to the imaging-heavy core of the dataset, G21K (particle & radiation handling) and H05G (X-ray technique) cover the smallest shares of records, at 10.6% and 11.6% respectively. That suggests claim space tied to radiation-handling hardware and core X-ray tube technique is less densely occupied than diagnosis or image-processing claims. Specific candidates worth checking include detector lag correction circuitry, cooling-requirement engineering and microfocus source lifetime extension, none of which show heavy concentration in the current filing pattern.
US6868138B2, assigned to the Regents of the University of Michigan and granted in 2005, covers a method for extending a flat panel detector's dynamic range by combining hardware pixel-clustering with optical masks of varying transparency and a software step that merges two correlated exposure scans before image reconstruction. It is a foundational citation in the flat-panel CT space and appears among the more heavily cited records tied to this hardware approach. New work using a genuinely different mechanism for extending dynamic range, such as sensor-level rather than optical-mask sensitivity variation, would sit outside its specific claim scope, but any design using paired-exposure combination with masked pixel clusters should be reviewed against it directly rather than assumed clear.
Research X-Ray Sources and Detectors for Inspection in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole x-ray sources and detectors for inspection 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.