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-wing-structure-and-aerodynamics-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Aerostructures Patent LandscapeAircraft Wing Structure and Aerodynamics Patents
- Filing activity has cooled since 2020. the 13-filing peak year has given way to a flat-to-declining trend through the 2022 midpoint, with the most recent year understated by publication lag.
- Airbus entities file jointly at a rate no other pairing matches. the strongest co-assignee pair in the dataset links two Airbus operating entities across 13 shared families, a tighter internal coordination pattern than COMAC's own cross-entity pairing shows.
- The most-cited prior art predates the dataset's search window. the top-cited record carries 238 citations from a monolithic composite wing manufacturing process, showing where foundational claims already sit before newer filings can build around them.
97
Published Records
-67%
3-Yr Growth (lag-adjusted)
US
Leading Jurisdiction
18
Active Filers Ranked
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families addressing aircraft wing structure and aerodynamics, filtered to filings that combine wing-box and high-lift-device architecture with claim language around load path, flutter, winglets, spar-rib arrangement or aeroelastic tailoring. The IPC scope centres on B64C (aeroplanes and helicopters), with smaller overlaps into ground installations, aircraft equipment and composite shaping processes. 97 patent families were identified across the 2015 to 2026 window.
Filing offices skew heavily toward the United States and Europe, with a smaller but consistent presence in China, the United Kingdom, PCT filings and Austria. That distribution points to a field still anchored in the traditional aerospace manufacturing centres, even as Chinese entities begin to appear in the assignee pool.
Filing activity by year, 2017-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Aircraft Wing Structure and Aerodynamics 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
Filing Data
Filing trend and technology composition
The filing curve and IPC breakdown below describe how activity in this space has moved since 2015 and where within the aerospace classification system the claims concentrate.
A peak in 2020, then a decline
Filings rose from 6 in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2020, then eased back toward 5 by the 2022 midpoint. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the final one to two years in any such series will always understate true activity; the decline shown here is real in direction but its endpoint should be read with that lag in mind.
B64C dominates the classification mix
All 97 records carry a B64C classification, the aeroplane and helicopter structural class, confirming the search is tightly scoped to airframe claims rather than broader aviation systems. Smaller counts in B64F (ground installations), B64D (aircraft equipment) and B29C (plastics shaping) show where wing-structure claims spill into adjacent manufacturing and support disciplines, but these remain minor relative to the core class.
Shares are the percentage of the 97 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 Wing Structure and Aerodynamics covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Aircraft Wing Structure and Aerodynamics with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about aircraft wing structure and aerodynamics and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative Filing
A representative claim in the current filing wave
Representative Record
Aircraft wing structure (US20240140588A1, Airbus Operations Limited)
AIRBUS OPERATIONS LIMITED
An aircraft wing structure built from first and second unitary shell structures in fibre-reinforced composite, each carrying a partial front spar, partial rear spar and wing skin that overlap on assembly to form complete front and rear spars. The resulting wing box structure achieves a lower overall part count than conventional built-up assemblies while remaining lightweight and durable, with aircraft systems equipment attachable to the shell structures either before or after final assembly.Filed by Airbus Operations Limited, published 2024-05-02.
Most-cited records in this landscape
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6190484B1 | Monolithic composite wing manufacturing process | 238 |
| 2 | US4285482A | Wing leading edge high lift device | 162 |
| 3 | US4351502A | Continuous skin, variable camber airfoil edge actuating mechanism | 144 |
| 4 | US4427168A | Variable camber leading edge mechanism with Krueger flap | 127 |
| 5 | US3941334A | Variable camber airfoil | 121 |
| 6 | EP0103038A1 | Continuous skin, variable camber airfoil edge actuating mechanism | 61 |
| 7 | US5921506A | Extendible leading edge flap | 59 |
| 8 | US20060144991A1 | Swept-wing box-type aircraft with high fligh static stability | 51 |
| 9 | US8870124B2 | Application of elastomeric vortex generators | 47 |
| 10 | US20130099053A1 | Mid-Wing Multi-Deck Airplane | 43 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and favour older filings; treat them as a signal of foundational reach rather than of current commercial relevance.
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 Wing Structure and Aerodynamics 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 →Landscape Signals
What the numbers indicate
Three patterns stand out once the filing trend, citation table and co-assignee data are read together.
Filing Momentum
13 → 5
peak (2020) to midpoint (2022)
Activity has cooled from its 2020 peak
The filing count climbed from 6 in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2020, then fell back to 5 by 2022. Read alongside the momentum table, where every tracked assignee shows zero filings in the latest year, this looks like a genuine slowdown rather than a data artefact, though the final year or two is always understated by publication lag.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Assignee Coordination
13 shared families
strongest co-assignee pair
Airbus's internal filing pattern is the tightest pairing
The strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset links two Airbus operating entities across 13 shared families, well ahead of the next-strongest pairing between two COMAC-affiliated entities at 6. That gap suggests Airbus manages wing-structure IP through closely coordinated multi-entity filings more than any other group in this set.
Co-assignee pair analysis, 5 pairs identified
Prior Art Depth
238 citations
top-cited record
Foundational claims sit outside the current filing window
The most-cited record in this landscape, a monolithic composite wing manufacturing process, carries 238 citations and predates the dataset's active filing years. New entrants drafting composite wing-box claims are working in the shadow of prior art that has already accumulated substantial citation weight.
Most-cited records table
Geographic Spread
US 41 · EP 20
leading receiving offices
Filing activity concentrates in US and European offices
The United States and European Patent Office together account for the large majority of receiving-office activity, with China, the United Kingdom, WIPO/PCT and Austria trailing well behind. This is consistent with a field still led by legacy aerospace manufacturing jurisdictions rather than a broadly globalised filing strategy.
Receiving office breakdown
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 wing structure and aerodynamics, 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 Wing Structure and Aerodynamics 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
Assignee Landscape
Who holds the claim space
Assignee activity in this dataset is concentrated among a small group of established airframe manufacturers, with Airbus's multiple operating entities and COMAC's design-and-manufacturing pairing accounting for the strongest co-filing relationships identified.
Coordinated Filer
13
shared families with sister entity
Airbus operating entities file as a coordinated group
Airbus's operations and UK operations entities share the strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset, and a separate pairing with its French entity adds a third coordinated link. This pattern points to wing-structure IP being managed centrally across Airbus's multi-country manufacturing footprint rather than filed independently by each site.
Co-assignee pair data
Design-Manufacture Pair
6
shared families
COMAC pairs its design and manufacturing entities
The commercial aircraft corporation of China and its Shanghai aircraft manufacturing subsidiary form the second-strongest co-assignee pairing in the dataset, reflecting a design-house-to-manufacturer filing relationship distinct from Airbus's cross-border pattern.
Co-assignee pair data
Momentum Check
0 in latest year
across every tracked assignee
No tracked assignee shows recent-year filings
Every major assignee identified in the momentum data, including Airbus's entities, Boeing, COMAC and its Shanghai subsidiary, shows zero filings in the latest tracked year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this reads as an incomplete final year rather than a simultaneous industry-wide halt, but it means recent strategic shifts are not yet visible in the public record.
Recent-year momentum by assignee
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Airbus Operations S.A.S. | 0 | -100% |
| Airbus Operations Limited | 0 | — |
| The Boeing Company | 0 | — |
| Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, Ltd. (COMAC) | 0 | — |
| Shanghai Aircraft Manufacturing Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Airbus SAS (France) | 0 | — |
| Shanghai Aircraft Design and Research Institute Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| FREDIANI ALDO | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Aircraft Wing Structure and Aerodynamics 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
Next Steps
Where to take this analysis
The trends above describe what has already been filed. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means drilling into specific claim sets and mapping them against a defined design.
Map a specific design against the cited prior art
The high-citation records identified here, including the monolithic composite wing manufacturing process and the Krueger flap mechanisms, define much of the occupied claim space. A design that touches spar overlap, camber actuation or composite shell assembly should be checked against these directly.
Explore this landscape in EurekaTrack the coordinated Airbus and COMAC filing groups
The strongest co-assignee pairings in this dataset point to centrally managed IP strategies at Airbus and COMAC. Monitoring new filings from these paired entities is a more reliable early signal than watching any single subsidiary alone.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Aircraft Wing Structure and Aerodynamics 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
Frequently Asked
Common questions about this landscape
This dataset shows filing activity concentrated among a small group of established airframe manufacturers, with Airbus's multiple operating entities and COMAC's design-and-manufacturing pairing forming the strongest co-assignee relationships identified. Rather than a single dominant filer, the pattern is one of coordinated multi-entity filing within each major manufacturer's group. Anyone assessing freedom to operate should treat these grouped entities as a single strategic actor rather than independent filers.
The filing trend in this dataset rose from 6 records in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2020 before falling back to 5 by the 2022 midpoint. The dataset does not include the underlying commercial or regulatory drivers behind that peak, so any causal explanation would be speculation beyond the evidence. What is clear is that the decline is a real directional trend, not simply an artefact of the most recent year being undercounted, since it appears well before the publication-lag window.
Not entirely. Every tracked assignee in this dataset shows zero filings in the latest year, which is consistent with the roughly 18-month gap between when a patent is filed and when it publishes, rather than an actual industry-wide stop. The safer reading is that the last one to two years of any patent trend understate true filing activity, and the genuine slowdown signal is the decline from the 2020 peak toward the 2022 midpoint, not the zero at the very end of the series.
The most-cited record in this landscape is a monolithic composite wing manufacturing process patent carrying 238 citations, well ahead of the next records covering high-lift devices and variable camber airfoil mechanisms. High citation counts inside a searched corpus tend to favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate references, so this should be read as a marker of foundational influence rather than a current-relevance ranking. New composite wing-box filings are effectively drafting around this record's existing claim territory.
Based on the technology composition and co-assignee data in this dataset, thinner coverage appears around overlapping partial-spar shell joint designs, Krueger flap actuation linkages, variable camber trailing edge skins, and aeroelastic tailoring applied specifically to winglet stiffness. These sit adjacent to the dense core claim space defined by the highest-cited records rather than in an entirely separate field. Confirming genuine white space requires a targeted claims search against these specific sub-areas rather than relying on the aggregate landscape alone.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Aircraft Wing Structure and Aerodynamics 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 Wing Structure and Aerodynamics in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole aircraft wing structure and aerodynamics 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.