Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/aircraft-composite-damage-repair-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Airframe Maintenance & NDTAircraft composite damage repair patents: who is filing and where the claims sit
- 12 filings from the leading assignee against a fifth-place count of just 2 — a steep drop-off rather than an even spread across the ranked companies.
- Filing fell 67% from 2021 to 2024 (3 records down to 1), the last span the dataset treats as complete before publication lag masks 2025-2026.
- Robotic and control-system classes are rising fast B25J manipulators and G05B control systems appear in 24.0% and 20.0% of the 25 records — repair is being claimed as automation, not just materials.
25
Published Records
-67%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
6
Active Filers Ranked
Filing growth compares 2021 (3 records) with 2024 (1) — 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.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent activity at the intersection of composite repair processes for aircraft structures and the specific technical controls that make a repair airworthy: scarf taper ratio, surface preparation, vacuum bag cure, adhesive bondline thickness, moisture removal and strength restoration. It is a narrow, process-defined search rather than a broad materials search, which is why the record count is small and concentrated on repair engineering rather than composite chemistry.
The 25 records in scope span 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, filed mostly through the US receiving office with a smaller cluster through the EPO. Peak activity so far was 2020, and the most recent complete year shows filing well below that peak.
Filing activity and technology mix, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Aircraft Composite Damage Repair covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 25 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which technical classes carry the claims.
Filing trend
Filing peaked at 8 records in 2020. Using the last span the dataset treats as complete, filings dropped from 3 in 2021 to 1 in 2024, a 67% decline. Years after 2024 are still filling in under normal publication lag and should not be read as a continuing fall.
Technology composition
B29C (shaping of plastics) leads at 48.0% of the 25 records, the expected core for scarf and patch repair. B25J (manipulators & robots) at 24.0% and G05B (control & regulating systems) at 20.0% together point to a shift toward automated, sensor-guided repair rather than manual rework; G06F (16.0%) and G01B/G01M (8.0% each) round out the digital-inspection and metrology side.
Shares are the percentage of the 25 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Aircraft Composite Damage Repair covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Aircraft Composite Damage Repair with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about aircraft composite damage repair and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey patents
Most-cited and representative filings
Representative filing
Systems and Methods for Actualizing Simulated Scarfs and Patches for Repair of Composite Laminates (US20220134691A1, Boeing)
THE BOEING COMPANY
Systems and methods for actualizing simulated scarfing and patching for repair of composite laminates. A virtual environment lets engineers optimise a repair design and provide the most robust repair solution that meets structural requirements while minimising material removal and impact to the composite structure. An optimisation algorithm adjusts contour offsets for pad-up plies and adjusts scarf taper ratios in any direction to reduce material removed or avoid underlying structures. Repair designs are then transmitted to technicians for manual scarfing via printed templates or automated/robotic scarfing.Abstract trimmed for length; see the full filing for complete claim language.
Most-cited records in this landscape
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20230052634A1 | Joint autonomous repair verification and inspection system | 20 |
| 2 | US11504813B2 | Methods for health monitoring of ceramic matrix composite components in gas turbine engines | 16 |
| 3 | US20220134691A1 | Systems and Methods for Actualizing Simulated Scarfs and Patches for Repair of Composite Laminates | 10 |
| 4 | US20230146701A1 | Surface preparation end effector for industrial robot system and inspection and repair processes | 9 |
| 5 | US20230131624A1 | Surface analyst end effector for industrial robot | 8 |
| 6 | US20230146116A1 | Laser shearography end effector for industrial robot system | 5 |
| 7 | US20210354253A1 | Systems and methods for health monitoring of ceramic matrix composite components in gas turbine engines | 5 |
| 8 | US20210129464A1 | Assembly and Method to Repair Thermoplastic Composites | 2 |
| 9 | US20210103266A1 | Apparatus and method for contoured-surface component repair | 2 |
| 10 | US11040507B2 | Assembly and method to repair thermoplastic composites | 1 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to be cited; treat this as a measure of influence within the corpus, not of current technical importance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Aircraft Composite Damage Repair covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Read together, the ranking, the trend and the class mix point to a field that is small, process-specific and increasingly about automation rather than adhesive chemistry alone.
Concentration
12 vs 2
leader vs fifth place
One filer well ahead, then a thin field
The leading assignee holds 12 of the records in the ranking while fifth place holds only 2. That gap is a steep drop-off within a six-company ranking, not evidence of a crowded middle tier — there simply are not many companies filing repeatedly in this exact process space.
Ranking covers 6 companies total
Momentum
-67%
2021 → 2024 filings
Activity cooled after the 2020 peak
Filings ran from 3 in 2021 down to 1 in 2024, a 67% decline over that span. Peak filing was 2020 at 8 records. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are not yet complete and should not be read as confirming further decline.
2024 is the last complete year in this dataset
Technology mix
48.0%
of 25 records carry B29C
Shaping-of-plastics claims still anchor the field
B29C appears in 48.0% of the 25 records, confirming that scarf and patch repair process claims remain the technical core. The next-largest classes, B25J (24.0%) and G05B (20.0%), sit on robotics and control rather than materials, indicating claim activity is broadening into automated execution of the repair.
Shares exceed 100% because records carry multiple IPC classes
Collaboration
2 pairs
co-assignee pairs identified
Filing is mostly solo, with one tight pairing
Only two co-assignee pairs appear in this landscape. The stronger pairing links two Rolls-Royce entities across 3 shared records, suggesting an internal corporate-structure filing pattern rather than an external joint-development deal.
Strongest pair: 3 shared records
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to aircraft composite damage repair, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Aircraft Composite Damage Repair covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked field is small and skewed toward one leader, with named entrants from airframe OEMs, an engine maker and a university.
Leader
12 records
top-ranked assignee
One assignee dominates the ranking
The leading company accounts for 12 of the records in the six-company ranking, filing on repair simulation, scarf optimisation and robotic surface preparation. Its filings sit across both the core materials class and the newer robotics/control classes.
Leader vs. fifth place: 12 vs 2
Engine-side filer
3 shared records
co-assignee pairing
A propulsion-focused pairing files jointly
Two related Rolls-Royce entities share 3 records between them, concentrated on ceramic matrix composite repair and health monitoring for gas turbine components — a distinct sub-track from airframe scarf repair.
Strongest co-assignee pair in this dataset
Airframe OEM pairing
1 shared record
co-assignee pairing
Airbus entities file together on a smaller scale
Two Airbus operating entities share 1 record, a smaller footprint than the Rolls-Royce pairing but consistent with a large OEM splitting filings across regional operating units.
Second co-assignee pair identified
Academic entrant
Named in ranking
non-corporate filer
A university appears among the ranked assignees
Wichita State University appears in the ranking alongside the OEMs and the engine maker, an unusual entrant in a field otherwise dominated by industry, and worth watching for licensing or sponsored-research signals.
One of six ranked assignees
Recent-year momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| The Boeing Company | 0 | — |
| Wichita State University | 0 | — |
| Rolls-Royce plc | 0 | — |
| ROLLS ROYCE HIGH TEMPERATURE COMPOSITES INC | 0 | — |
| Airbus Operations GmbH | 0 | — |
| Airbus Operations Limited (UK) | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Aircraft Composite Damage Repair covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next
Where to take this analysis
The figures here describe the shape of the field; the next step is usually to test a specific claim or design-around against the underlying filings.
Check a specific process against the leader's claims
If a repair workflow touches scarf taper optimisation or simulated scarfing, compare it directly against the Boeing filing highlighted here before committing to a design.
Explore in EurekaTrack the robotics/control shift
B25J and G05B classes are growing inside this niche; monitoring new filings there flags automation-side entrants before they reach the ranking.
Set up monitoring in EurekaWatch the two engine-maker filings
The Rolls-Royce co-assignee pair concentrates on CMC repair and health monitoring — a track worth separate diligence from airframe scarf repair.
Run a deeper search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Aircraft Composite Damage Repair covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on this landscape
Within this landscape's six-company ranking, one assignee leads with 12 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked company's 2. That is a steep drop-off rather than an even spread, meaning most of the process-specific claim space documented here is held by a single filer rather than distributed across many active companies. Anyone entering this space should review that leader's portfolio first, since it covers the largest share of the ranked filings.
Filings dropped from 3 in 2021 to 1 in 2024, a 67% decline over that span, after peaking at 8 records in 2020. That said, publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 numbers in this dataset are still incomplete and cannot yet be read as confirming a continued slowdown. The safest read is that activity cooled from its 2020 peak through the last complete year, 2024.
B29C, the shaping-of-plastics classification, appears in 48.0% of the 25 records in scope and remains the technical core covering scarf and patch repair processes. Robotics (B25J, 24.0%) and control systems (G05B, 20.0%) are the next most common classes, indicating that a meaningful share of recent claim activity is about automating and instrumenting the repair rather than changing the underlying materials chemistry. Digital data processing (G06F) and dimensional/structural measurement (G01B, G01M) classes appear less often but reinforce the same automation and inspection trend.
US20220134691A1, assigned to Boeing, covers a virtual-environment system for simulating scarf and patch repair designs on composite laminates, including an optimisation algorithm that adjusts contour offsets for pad-up plies and scarf taper ratios to minimise material removal. It is the most cited record among the top-cited group after the two leading citation counts and is the representative filing for this landscape because it sits squarely on the scarf-repair-simulation sub-area. It does not, on its own, cover physical repair execution methods that fall outside the simulation and design-optimisation step described in its abstract.
The class data shows thinner claim density around automated bondline thickness verification, moisture-content sensing ahead of cure, and closed-loop vacuum bag cure control, each of which is referenced in the search criteria but not heavily represented in the leading IPC classes. Robotic end-effector calibration for surface preparation is also comparatively underclaimed relative to the surface-preparation search terms themselves. These are reasonable starting points for a freedom-to-operate review precisely because the core B29C class is already dense while these adjacent process controls are not.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Aircraft Composite Damage Repair covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Aircraft Composite Damage Repair in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole aircraft composite damage repair 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.