Flight Control Computer Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
Filing growth compares 2021 (1,350 records) with 2024 (905) — 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 658,673 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the flight control computer patent record shows
Flight control computers sit at the intersection of avionics hardware, control-surface actuation and increasingly, autonomy software, which is why a search built around “flight control computer” pulls in records from consumer electronics and telecom assignees as well as airframe manufacturers. The 658,673 records in scope span 2015 through mid-2026, giving a decade-plus view of how the claim space has filled in around fly-by-wire architectures, redundant control paths and, more recently, unmanned platforms.
The representative record below, Bombardier's fly-by-wire flight control system, illustrates the core architecture much of this field still builds around: serially redundant flight control computers in a single active-primary channel, backed by dissimilar-hardware control paths. Reading the landscape against that baseline shows where later filings extend the architecture and where they simply restate it.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 658,673-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across the IPC subclasses that make up flight control computer technology.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Annual publications rose from 1,413 in 2017 to a peak of 1,491 in 2018, then eased; the last complete year, 2024, sits at 905, down from 1,350 in 2021 (-33%). 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete under the standard 18-month publication lag and should not be read as a continued decline.
IPC subclass composition
B64C (aeroplanes & helicopters) leads at 1.1% of records, followed by G05D (control of non-electric variables) at 0.9%. Records can carry multiple IPC classes, so these shares do not sum to 100% and each is measured against the full 658,673-record base, not against each other.
Shares are the percentage of the 658,673 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Avionics & Flight Control: Flight Control Computer Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about avionics & flight control: flight control computer patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited records
US20160114882A1 — Fly-by-wire flight control system and method (Bombardier)
A multi-axis, serially redundant, single-channel fly-by-wire control system in which only one primary flight control computer is active at a time, backed by a matrix of parallel flight control surface controllers — stabilizer motor control units and actuator electronics control modules — implemented with dissimilar hardware across multiple control paths within the single channel.Filed by Bombardier Inc., published 2016-04-28.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5768382A | Remote-auditing of computer generated outcomes and authenticated biling and access control system using crypt… | 1,979 |
| 2 | US5970143A | Remote-auditing of computer generated outcomes, authenticated billing and access control, and software meteri… | 1,425 |
| 3 | US20030093187A1 | PFN/TRAC systemTM FAA upgrades for accountable remote and robotics control to stop the unauthorized use of ai… | 977 |
| 4 | US5897620A | Method and apparatus for the sale of airline-specified flight tickets | 925 |
| 5 | US20140316616A1 | Unmanned aerial vehicle and methods for controlling same | 922 |
| 6 | US6056237A | Sonotube compatible unmanned aerial vehicle and system | 795 |
| 7 | US6422941B1 | Universal tactile feedback system for computer video games and simulations | 780 |
| 8 | US6112141A | Apparatus and method for graphically oriented aircraft display and control | 750 |
| 9 | US20130223279A1 | Sensor based configuration and control of network devices | 732 |
| 10 | US20050004723A1 | Vehicle control system including related methods and components | 640 |
Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they are not a measure of current commercial importance.
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 →Reading the concentration and citation data
The ranking and citation tables point to a field with a handful of large filers, a long tail of smaller entrants, and citation weight concentrated in older, broadly worded records.
No single company controls the space
The top 5 assignees together account for 11.9% of all records in scope, and the top 10 for 17.3%. That leaves the large majority of filings spread across the remaining 90 ranked companies plus unranked entrants, which matters for freedom-to-operate work: clearance searches cannot stop at the obvious airframe names.
Old, broad claims still anchor prior-art searches
The most-cited record in scope, US5768382A, dates from well before the current filing wave and covers remote-auditing and access-control protocols rather than flight control architecture narrowly. High citation counts here reflect breadth and age, not present-day relevance, so citation rank should be weighted against filing date before it drives a design-around decision.
Volume has eased from its 2018 peak, not collapsed
Filing peaked at 1,491 records in 2018 and had fallen to 905 by 2024, a -33% change over the 2021-2024 span. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as confirming a further drop.
Airframe and control classes dominate, autonomy classes are thinner
B64C and G05D lead the subclass mix at 1.1% and 0.9% of records respectively, with drone-specific B64U at 0.5% and radar/positioning G01S at 0.2%. The gap between the airframe-heavy top classes and the thinner autonomy and sensing classes suggests where claim density has not yet caught up with where flight control software is heading.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to avionics & flight control: flight control computer patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this from here
The landscape points to a field with occupied airframe claims and thinner coverage in autonomy and sensing integration — the next step is testing a specific claim against that gap.
Pressure-test a draft claim against the cited prior art
Run a candidate claim in the dissimilar-hardware or drone-integration space against the most-cited records identified here to see how much of the language is already occupied.
Open Eureka to check noveltyTrack the leading filers' latest activity
Given the sharp latest-year pullbacks among the largest assignees, set up ongoing monitoring rather than relying on this snapshot alone.
Set up monitoring in EurekaFrequently asked questions
No single company dominates this field: the top 5 assignees combined hold just 11.9% of the 658,673 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 17.3%. The ranked leaders include both traditional airframe and avionics manufacturers and large electronics and telecom filers, because the underlying search terms pull in general-purpose flight-and-computer language as well as narrowly aerospace filings. A freedom-to-operate search in this space should not stop at the largest names, since most of the volume sits in the long tail below them.
Filing peaked in 2018 at 1,491 records and has since eased, with the last fully complete year, 2024, at 905 records versus 1,350 in 2021 — a -33% change over that span. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and understate real activity; they should not be read as proof of a continuing decline. The honest read is a cooling from a 2018 peak, not a collapse.
The IPC composition shows B64C (aeroplanes & helicopters) and G05D (control of non-electric variables) as the leading subclasses, each covering a little over 1% and under 1% of the 658,673 records respectively. Aircraft equipment (B64D), traffic control systems (G08G), and drone-specific B64U also appear, alongside smaller shares in navigation (G01C) and radar/positioning (G01S). Since records often carry multiple IPC codes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should each be read against the full record count, not against one another.
The thinner IPC shares in drone-specific control integration (B64U), radar and positioning fusion (G01S), and navigation/gyroscope classes (G01C) suggest lighter claim density relative to the dominant airframe and control-surface classes. Architectural elements such as dissimilar-hardware redundancy paths and single-channel primary/standby switching logic, as seen in filings like Bombardier's fly-by-wire system, also show room for more specific follow-on claims. These are relative gaps within a heavily filed field, not empty categories, so a search against the specific prior art in that sub-area is still necessary before drafting.
The most-cited record in this dataset, US5768382A, has 1,979 citations but covers remote-auditing and access-control protocols rather than flight control architecture specifically, and it predates the current filing wave by a wide margin. High citation counts in a searched corpus like this tend to reflect the age and breadth of a filing more than its present-day commercial relevance. Citation rank is a useful signal for tracing prior art, but it should be weighted against filing date rather than treated as a measure of current importance.
Research Avionics & Flight Control: Flight Control Computer Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole avionics & flight control: flight control computer patent landscape 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.