Automated Drilling Advisory Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- Concentrated at the top. the five leading assignees together hold 40.5% of all 1,727 records in scope, and the top ten hold 61.7%.
- Growth has cooled, not collapsed. filings ran from 125 in 2021 to 94 in 2024, a -25% shift over that span, after peaking at 147 in 2019.
- Drilling mechanics still dominate the claims. 89.9% of records sit in E21B, while AI-model classes like G06N (5.3%) and G06Q (2.3%) remain comparatively open.
Filing growth compares 2021 (125 records) with 2024 (94) — 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 1,727 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families that combine drilling parameter optimisation — mechanical specific energy, weight-on-bit control, founder-point detection, penetration-rate modelling, bit-wear estimation, stick-slip detection — with automated setpoint adjustment. It spans filings published between 2015 and mid-2026, drawing on 1,727 records across six major receiving offices.
The field sits at the intersection of downhole mechanics and control software: most records still classify primarily as earth-drilling hardware, but a growing minority also carry digital-processing and AI-model classifications, marking where advisory logic is moving from fixed rule sets toward learned models.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,727 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings rose from 63 in 2017 to a peak of 147 in 2019, then eased to 94 by 2024 — the last year that can be read as complete, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months and 2025-2026 counts (10 in 2026) will still fill in.
IPC subclass distribution
E21B (earth and rock drilling) covers 89.9% of records, confirming this is fundamentally a drilling-hardware field with software layered on top; G06F, G01V and G05B each cover a meaningful minority, while G06N (AI models, 5.3%) and G06Q (business/admin processing, 2.3%) remain the smallest slices — evidence of where advisory logic has and hasn't yet been formally claimed.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,727 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Automated Drilling Advisory and Optimisation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about automated drilling advisory and optimisation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Mechanical specific energy drilling system (US8833487B2)
A mechanical specific energy downhole drilling assembly having a bottomhole assembly including drill pipe and a drill bit, a weight on bit and torque sub for sensing torque, weight on bit and revolutions per minute of the drill bit; a command and control sub for receiving input from the weight on bit and torque sub for determining instantaneous mechanical specific energy of the downhole drilling assembly and an anti-stall tool responsive to real time mechanical specific energy information from the command and control sub to adjust the weight on the drill bit to maximize rate of penetration of the drill bit.Filed by WWT North America Holdings, published 2014-09-16 — predates the bulk of the dataset's filing activity and anchors much of the downstream MSE-based claim language.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20090090555A1 | Automated directional drilling apparatus and methods | 443 |
| 2 | US20090132458A1 | Intelligent Drilling Advisor | 278 |
| 3 | US20110186353A1 | System and Method for Monitoring and Controlling Underground Drilling | 235 |
| 4 | US7142986B2 | System for optimizing drilling in real time | 232 |
| 5 | US20080156531A1 | Automated MSE-based drilling apparatus and methods | 190 |
| 6 | US5730234A | Method for determining drilling conditions comprising a drilling model | 190 |
| 7 | US20110280104A1 | Dual top drive systems and methods for wellbore operations | 169 |
| 8 | WO2009039448A2 | Automated directional drilling apparatus and methods | 154 |
| 9 | US20090076873A1 | Method and system to improve engineered system decisions and transfer risk | 150 |
| 10 | US20070185696A1 | Method of real-time drilling simulation | 148 |
Citation counts favour older filings inside any searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later art, not as a ranking of current commercial 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 numbers say about where this field is headed
Three findings that shape how a filing or freedom-to-operate strategy should treat this space.
A small group holds the core claim space
The five leading assignees together account for 40.5% of all 1,727 records, and the top ten reach 61.7%. New entrants are filing into a space where the dominant service companies and equipment makers already hold dense, overlapping claim positions around MSE and setpoint control.
Growth has pulled back from its 2019 peak
After peaking at 147 filings in 2019, activity settled to 94 by 2024, a -25% move over the 2021-2024 window. That is a cooling from an unusually active period, not a collapse — later years in the count are still incomplete due to publication lag.
Hardware claims dominate; AI-model claims are thin
Nearly nine in ten records touch E21B drilling-hardware classification, while only 5.3% carry a G06N AI-model class and 2.3% carry G06Q business-process classification. Advisory logic is still often claimed as embedded control rather than as a standalone learned model.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to automated drilling advisory and optimisation, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where it thins out
Filing leadership sits with a handful of large oilfield service and equipment companies, but their recent-year momentum has slowed across the board, opening room at the edges of the core claim set.
One assignee sets the pace
The top-ranked assignee holds 166 records, well ahead of fifth place at 117 and tenth place at 56 — a steep drop-off that marks where the field moves from concentrated leadership to a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants.
Even the leaders are filing less than before
Recent-year momentum among the most active assignees is uniformly negative, with year-on-year drops ranging roughly from -60% to -75% among several top filers. This is consistent with a maturing core claim set rather than fresh land-grab activity.
Co-filing is limited and mostly internal
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest links sit between related corporate entities under the same parent group rather than between independent competitors — cross-company joint filing is not yet a norm in this space.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Schlumberger Technology Corporation | 5 | -64% |
| HELMERICH & PAYNE TECH LLC | 2 | -60% |
| Schlumberger | 2 | -71% |
| Schlumberger Canada Limited | 2 | -71% |
| Motive Drilling Technologies, Inc. | 1 | 0% |
| GeoQuest Systems BV | 1 | -75% |
| Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is filing, freedom-to-operate, or partnership scouting.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leaders
With 40.5% of records held by five assignees, a new filing in MSE or setpoint control should be screened against their portfolios before drafting claims.
Run a freedom-to-operate checkTarget the thinner IPC branches
G06N and G06Q classes remain comparatively open relative to E21B; a claim built around learned models or business-layer optimisation faces less prior art density.
Explore white space in EurekaWatch momentum, not just headcount
Recent-year YoY drops among top filers suggest the core claim set is maturing; tracking new entrants below the top ten may reveal where activity is shifting.
Track assignee momentumCommon questions about this landscape
Filing activity is concentrated among a small group of oilfield service and equipment companies, with the top five assignees together holding 40.5% of all 1,727 records in scope and the top ten holding 61.7%. The leading assignee alone accounts for 166 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked holder at 117. Below the top ten, filing density drops sharply into a long tail of companies with far fewer records each, so competitive risk is heavily weighted toward the leaders rather than spread evenly across the field.
Filings peaked at 147 in 2019 and had settled to 94 by 2024, a -25% change over the 2021-2024 window — a genuine cooling from an unusually active period rather than a sign the technology is dying out. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so those years should not yet be read as a continued decline. The more reliable read is that the core claim space matured through the late 2010s and activity has since normalised.
Mechanical specific energy is a calculated measure of the energy required to remove a unit volume of rock, derived from weight on bit, torque and rotational speed, and it underpins many of the automated advisory systems in this dataset. Patents in this space, including early filings like US8833487B2, use real-time MSE calculations to trigger automated adjustments to weight on bit or drilling parameters, aiming to keep the bit operating near its most efficient point. It is one of the most heavily claimed technical concepts in the search terms defining this landscape.
The IPC composition shows 89.9% of records classified under E21B (drilling hardware), while AI-model classification (G06N) covers only 5.3% and business-process classification (G06Q) only 2.3% of the 1,727 records. That gap suggests advisory logic implemented as a distinct learned-model or software-service claim, rather than embedded hardware control, is comparatively under-claimed. Image-data-driven bit wear estimation and non-mechanical stick-slip detection also sit in smaller IPC classes relative to the core drilling-hardware claim set.
US8833487B2 claims a specific bottomhole assembly architecture — a weight-on-bit and torque sub feeding a command-and-control sub that computes real-time mechanical specific energy and drives an anti-stall tool to adjust weight on bit automatically. It does not block every approach to drilling optimisation; systems that use different sensing arrangements, different control triggers, or that apply MSE-style logic at the surface rather than downhole may sit outside its specific claim scope. Any team building a downhole anti-stall or auto-WOB system should review its claims in detail alongside the broader MSE-related filings it has influenced, given its high citation count of 443.
Research Automated Drilling Advisory and Optimisation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole automated drilling advisory and optimisation 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.