A key question is what has happened to XR Patent filings (as an indicator of XR technical innovation) since the Metaverse buzz of 2021? Our last XR report showed strong growth in XR Patent filings year on year up to 2020 at both the European Patent Office (EPO) and for PCT (so called “worldwide”) patent applications. Our latest figures show that there has been a 13% drop in publications of XR related filing at the EPO between 2021 and 2025, and a 5% drop in publications of PCT applications over the same time period, albeit in the context of what are still, by historical standards, very high filing numbers of XR patent publications. Is this a sign that some of the froth is starting to come of the metaverse driven XR technology surge?

As is often the case, the answer might lie in a combination of factors. At least in 2023/2024, it seems that the traditionally growing total number of EPO and PCT applications has arguably plateaued perhaps indicating general global challenges impacting innovation in general, and from which XR innovations are not sheltered. Indeed, our recent AI report shows a slowing in the growth rate of AI patent applications in general, and a drop in the number of Quantum AI publications, between 2023 and 2024.

However, whilst the number of XR patent publications remains high by historical levels, showing that there is a continuing interest in XR technologies, the more pronounced drop in XR filings relative to the slowing of AI publications and more modest drop in Quantum AI applications, perhaps indicates a greater vulnerability of XR technologies to external pressures.

Interestingly, the drop in patent publications at the European Patent Office (EPO) is much more pronounced than for PCT applications. As will be seen from the following sections, there are differences in the prevailing nationalities of applicants, types of technology, and applicant demographics and industries between EPO and PCT applications that could be contributing factors. For example, although US entities are the largest filers of XR patent applications at the EPO, there is a much greater spread of applicant nationalities such that US entities are less dominant for EPO filings than for PCT applications. This could be an indication that US originating XR innovation may be holding up better in the face of global pressures.

Which countries are leading the charge of industrial XR innovation? Patent applicants have to provide an address which can be harvested to get the country of origin of applications. This is an imperfect measure as the applicant may be based in one country but the inventors may be based in a different country. However, the figures can be used to give at least an indication of where the commercial XR interest lies.

However, in this case, the answer is clearly that the US is at the forefront of industrial innovation in XR technology. XR PCT applications in particular are largely dominated by US applicants perhaps reflecting the global aspirations of US entities. Although XR applications at the EPO appear to be more diverse in terms of applicant, the US is still by far the largest filer of XR patent applications at the EPO. It is interesting to note the rise of Chinese entities filing for XR patent applications at the EPO, where Chinese entities having overtaken their Japanese counterparts to establish themselves in second place behind the US. Interestingly, this trend isn’t mirrored in PCT filings, where Chinese entities lag well down the list of countries of origin. This could reflect a tactical choice by Chinese filers in this area to strategically target specific markets rather than using the PCT system. 

However, whilst the number of XR patent publications remains high by historical levels, showing that there is a continuing interest in XR technologies, the more pronounced drop in XR filings relative to the slowing of AI publications and more modest drop in Quantum AI applications, perhaps indicates a greater vulnerability of XR technologies to external pressures.

Interestingly, the drop in patent publications at the European Patent Office (EPO) is much more pronounced than for PCT applications. As will be seen from the following sections, there are differences in the prevailing nationalities of applicants, types of technology, and applicant demographics and industries between EPO and PCT applications that could be contributing factors. For example, although US entities are the largest filers of XR patent applications at the EPO, there is a much greater spread of applicant nationalities such that US entities are less dominant for EPO filings than for PCT applications. This could be an indication that US originating XR innovation may be holding up better in the face of global pressures.

XR technology deals with one of the fundamental pillars of modern technology, the human-machine interface. It’s potential for making human-machine interactions easier and more intuitive makes it appealing to a wide range of technology sectors. The interest comes from those developing core technologies applicable to XR in areas such as vision, audio and the like (“technology push down”), as well as those with applications that can be enhanced by XR looking to implement XR to address their specific needs (“application push-up”). To try to identify the commercial sectors leading the charge of XR innovation, we looked at standard industrial classification (SIC) codes of the top 50 PCT and European (EP) Patent applicants for XR tech.

The European Patent (EP) application data shows a clear “technology push down” dominance, with electronics, computers, data / digital services, and software companies being strongly represented at the top of the charts. This is not surprising, as patents are largely a tool to protect the value in industrial innovation, and many of these sectors have strong, well developed patent strategies associated with a strong culture of technology development. However, it is interesting to see which of the “application push-up” sectors are represented in the data, with telecoms, games & toys, automotive, business services, commercial research, medical equipment, aviation and the motion-picture industry all showing up in the top 50 industrial sectors. It is easy to see the potential difference that XR systems could make in these sectors, for example, in tele-presence, enhanced provision of information whilst performing tasks, improved visualisation and others.

The PCT (so called worldwide) patent filing data (albeit more dominated by US applicants) shows some similar trends and some key differences. Digital companies again feature prominently, with data / digital services and software claiming the top two spots. However, also of note, is that the electronics sector is further down the list relative to the EP filing data, and that several “application focussed” industries, such as games & toys, telecoms, the motion picture industry, medical equipment and industrial machinery feature more strongly than for the EP data. The PCT data also interestingly highlights some application focussed sectors such as petroleum products & services, universities, materials, pharmaceuticals and financial services that are not represented in the top 50 Given that the PCT filings are much more US focussed than the EP filings, which represents a broader spread of US, Asian and European applicants, the differences in industries between the two data sets may be indicative of the differences in the industrial base of the US relative to the rest of the world. In any event, the wide range of industries and applications represented in the two data sets are representative of the wide range of application that could potentially be greatly enhanced by XR.

For technology and innovation driven businesses, IP in general and Patents in particular can be of huge value. This is the case regardless of whether the entity is a small, agile innovator, a huge tech giant, an established player in a field or a university. Despite this, there is a view held by some that Patents are largely the domain of a few multinational giants. To see if this is true and to try to get an insight on what type of companies are leading commercial innovation in the XR field, we have divided the XR patent filing applicants in our data sets by the amount of XR patent filings they’ve made. Specifically, we have divided the data up by:

1. the top 20 XR applicants (the “mega-filers”, who all filed at least several hundred and often thousands of XR patent applications over the period analysed)
2. the “middle order” who average between 3 and 20 XR patent publications a year
3. the “smaller filers” who average less than three XR patent applications a year

As expected, the data for both PCT and European (EP) applications shows that “mega-filers” are indeed responsible for a large share of filings, being comfortably ahead of the number of XR applications from “middle order” filers for both European and PCT filings. Perhaps less expected is the sizable contribution from the “mega-filers” being eclipsed by the collective volume of XR patent filings by the “smaller filers” sector, who comfortably top both the PCT and EP charts, particularly in the case of PCT filings.

The “smaller filers” are likely not a homogeneous group but could include contributions from start-ups, spin-outs and other small entities, from universities and from larger companies who are merely “dabbling” in XR tech, such as those who might have an application that they think will be suited to XR technology, but haven’t really built up a large portfolio around it, amongst other possibilities.

Again, the relative prevalence of US applicants in the list of PCT filers suggests that geographic factors might play a part in the much larger proportion of applications from the “smaller filer” category in the PCT data relative to the EP data. The data also seems to suggest that the proportion of “smaller filers” is increasing, which could be a sign that the enthusiasm for XR tech is expanding rather than being confined to a limited number of enthusiasts. For example, as the technology advances and becomes more mass-market, then this could open up new “application lead” interest. Another possibility is that the interest of the big “tech giants” in XR technology might be cooling and focus switching to other interests such as AI. Whatever the reason, it will be interesting to see if this trend continues in our next XR report.

Patent Offices classify the Patent applications they receive by area of technology of the innovation described in the application, in part so a Patent Examiner with appropriate experience can examine the application.  Analysis of these patent classifications affords us the opportunity to look at the technical areas for which patent applications relating to XR technologies are being filed.

For European (EP) applications, the largest technical field is input / output arrangements and data transfer (including eye/gaze tracking, haptic feedback devices, and the like).  This is interesting because in our previous XR report input / output arrangements formed only the third largest technical field, behind image analysis (including segmentation of images, feature or object recognition, and so on), which has been pushed down to second place in our current report.  This could be an indicator of an increase in the importance of improving the human interface of XR devices, which can be critical for applications in which the way data is conveyed to the user is important, e.g. to produce a more realistic effect, or to reduce cognitive burden on the user, or to provide easier to identify indicators or the like.

A similar trend can be seen in the PCT filing data only with the positions reversed, with image analysis coming out ahead of input / output arrangements. However, this represents a much more significant shift from the findings in our previous XR report, in which optical systems and apparatus (including head mounted displays/headsets, holographic display technology and other display technology) was the dominant technical field. This could be a sign of maturity in the optical / visual device tech, or a move to more software / digital based innovation more commonly associated with areas such as image analysis. This may also be more aligned with a switch in focus from more technically complex, high performance and high value headsets to more consumer friendly solutions, such as the Meta – Ray Ban / Oakley collaborations.