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/blade-lightning-protection-systems-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Wind Blade ManufacturingBlade Lightning Protection Systems Patents
- Filing activity peaked in 2021 at 67 records, then fell 85% to 10 by 2024, the last year publication lag lets you read as complete.
- The top 5 assignees hold 63.3% of all 215 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 80.0% — this is a field with a narrow leadership tier and a long tail below it.
- 91.2% of records sit in F03D (wind motors), but conductive-mesh and antenna-adjacent classes barely register, leaving structural-integration claims comparatively open.
215
Published Records
63%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-85%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (67 records) with 2024 (10) — 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 215 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··8 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Blade lightning protection sits at the intersection of high-voltage engineering and composite blade manufacturing: a lightning receptor at the tip, a down conductor running the length of the blade, and a bond to the hub and tower that carries strike current to earth without damaging the carbon-fibre spar structure. The search underlying this page combines terms for the protection hardware itself — lightning receptor, down conductor, conductive mesh — with terms for how it is tested and verified in the field, including attachment point test, arc damage, resistance measurement and hub bonding. That combination pulls in 215 published records dated between 2015 and the July 2026 data cut-off.
Because a single family can be filed and re-published across several offices, the family count and the record count in this scope are the same figure: 215. Reading the field through IPC classes and receiving-office data below matters more here than reading raw counts, since document volume alone would overstate how much genuinely new engineering sits behind the filings.
Filing activity by year, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Blade Lightning Protection Systems 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 mix
Two figures anchor this section: how filing volume moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the 215 records actually sit in. Both are read against the same denominator throughout.
A sharp peak, then a fall — read carefully
Filings rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 67 in 2021, then declined to 10 by 2024, an 85% drop over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 show still-lower counts, but publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so those two years are undercounted rather than genuinely quiet; treat 2024 as the last complete year for trend reading.
Concentrated in wind motors, thin everywhere else
F03D (wind motors) covers 91.2% of the 215 records, confirming this is a wind-turbine-specific art rather than a generic lightning-protection one. G01R (electric and magnetic measurement, 10.7%) and B29C (shaping of plastics, 7.9%) are the next largest, with H02G (cable installation), B29D (plastic articles), H01Q (antennas), H05F (static electricity) and B23P (metal working) each under 7%. Because records can carry multiple classes these shares add to more than 100%, and the thinness of the smaller classes is itself informative about where structural, testing and cable-routing claims are less contested.
Shares are the percentage of the 215 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 Blade Lightning Protection Systems covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Blade Lightning Protection Systems with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about blade lightning protection systems and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey patents
Most-cited records and a representative filing
Representative filing
A spar cap assembly for a wind turbine blade with a lightning protection system
LM WINDPOWER A/S
The present invention relates to a wind turbine blade comprising a lightning protection system with at least one tip end lightning receptor arranged at an outer surface of the blade and a down conductor extending within the blade. The blade comprises carbon fibre reinforced spar caps, wherein electrically conductive meshes are connected between the respective tip end of each spar cap to the tip end lightning conductor.Filed by LM Wind Power, published 2023-12-21 — illustrates how current claims tie the down-conductor path directly into the carbon-fibre spar cap structure rather than treating protection as a bolt-on system.
Highest-cited records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2013007267A1 | A wind turbine blade | 64 |
| 2 | US20130336786A1 | Automatic Inspection of a Lightning Protection System on a Wind Turbine | 51 |
| 3 | US20100329881A1 | Transversal conduction lightning protection system | 44 |
| 4 | EP2336560A1 | Lightning current transfer assembly for a wind turbine | 36 |
| 5 | US8342805B2 | Transversal conduction lightning protection system | 30 |
| 6 | EP2267280A2 | Transversal conduction lightning protection system | 29 |
| 7 | US20160090968A1 | A lightning protection system for a wind turbine blade | 26 |
| 8 | US20130100570A1 | Lightning current transfer assembly for a wind turbine | 20 |
| 9 | US20100221111A1 | Wind turbine blade, wind turbine and method for manufacturing a wind turbine blade | 18 |
| 10 | US8643997B2 | Lightning current transfer assembly for a wind turbine | 14 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside this corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on subsequent filers, not as a ranking 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 Blade Lightning Protection Systems 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 say about the field
Three patterns stand out once the filing trend, the technology mix and the concentration figures are read together.
Filing momentum
67 → 10
2021 peak vs 2024
The peak has passed, but not the field
Filings fell 85% from the 2021 peak of 67 to 10 in 2024. That reads as post-peak consolidation around proven architectures rather than exit: publication lag means 2025-2026 figures are still filling in, and a fall from a sharp peak is consistent with an art moving from exploration to refinement of a settled design.
Read 2024, not 2025-2026, as the current baseline.
Leadership concentration
63.3% / 80.0%
top 5 / top 10 share of 215 records
A narrow leadership tier over a long tail
The top 5 assignees hold 63.3% of all 215 records in scope and the top 10 hold 80.0%, out of 37 ranked companies total. That leaves roughly a fifth of filings spread across 27 or more smaller entrants — a classic pattern where a handful of blade OEMs and tier-one suppliers set the architecture and a long tail files around specific test or component details.
37 companies make up the entire ranked list — not a top-50 cut.
Technology mix
91.2% F03D
share of 215 records
Wind-specific, not generic lightning protection
F03D dominates at 91.2% of records, confirming the art is built for turbine blades specifically rather than adapted from general lightning-protection engineering. The smaller classes — G01R measurement, B29C plastics shaping, H02G cable routing, H01Q antennas, H05F static handling — each sit under 11% and mark where fewer claims currently compete for the same ground.
Shares add to over 100% because records carry multiple IPC classes.
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 blade lightning protection systems, with the prior art for and against each one.
Co-filing is rare in this field
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Vestas Wind Systems A/S | ERICHSEN HANS V | 3 |
| Vestas Wind Systems A/S | NIEUWENHUIZEN JOHN JOHANNES MATHIAS HUBERTUS | 2 |
| Vestas Wind Systems A/S | LYNGBY CLAUS GROEN | 2 |
| LM Wind Power | WRIGHT JON STUART | 1 |
| LM Wind Power | ALDINGER GRAHAM ANDRESS | 1 |
| Vestas Wind Systems A/S | LOENBAEK KENT BACH | 1 |
| Vestas Wind Systems A/S | BAKER RICHARD | 1 |
Only 7 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest pairings link one major OEM to individual named inventors rather than to another company — most protection-system IP here is developed and held in-house.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Blade Lightning Protection Systems 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 holds the claim space
The leader sits well ahead of the field at 44 records, with fifth place at 14 and tenth place at 6 — a steep drop-off that puts most of the ranked 37 companies into single-digit territory.
Leader
44 records
leading assignee
One OEM sets the pace
The top-ranked assignee holds 44 records, well clear of fifth place at 14 — a gap wide enough that its architecture choices (tip receptor plus internal down conductor bonded through the spar cap) function as the reference point other filers design around or license against.
Gap to 5th place: 44 vs 14 records.
Mid-tier
14 → 6
5th to 10th place
A workable second tier
Between fifth and tenth place, record counts fall from 14 to 6, covering established turbine OEMs and specialist blade suppliers. These firms hold enough filings to be worth a freedom-to-operate check but not so many that a design-around is impossible.
10 companies together hold 80.0% of all 215 records.
Long tail
27+ companies
below 10th place
Fragmented below the top tier
The remainder of the 37 ranked assignees each hold small counts, filing on narrow details such as test methods or connector hardware rather than the core receptor-to-hub path. Recent-year momentum data shows several previously active leaders at zero filings in the latest year, consistent with the post-2021 slowdown across the whole field.
Momentum by leading assignees in the latest year: at or near zero across the board.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| LM Wind Power | 1 | 0% |
| Vestas Wind Systems A/S | 0 | — |
| Blade Dynamics Ltd | 0 | — |
| Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. | 0 | — |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy A/S | 0 | — |
| Gamesa Innovation & Technology, S.L. | 0 | — |
| Lagerwey Wind B.V. | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Blade Lightning Protection Systems 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
The dataset points to specific next checks rather than a general conclusion.
Check freedom-to-operate on spar-integrated conductors
The most-cited records and the representative filing both centre on conductive paths built into carbon-fibre spar caps rather than surface-mounted hardware. Any new design that routes current through structural composite should be checked against this cluster specifically.
Search this claim area in EurekaWatch the mid-tier for licensing or acquisition signals
Firms ranked fifth through tenth hold enough filings to matter but show low or zero recent-year momentum, a combination that often precedes portfolio consolidation or licensing activity.
Track assignee activity in EurekaModel claims in the thinner IPC classes before committing to F03D-only search
H01Q, H05F and B23P together cover a small share of records; a claim built around antenna-compatible receptors or static-discharge coatings will not show up in an F03D-only prior art search.
Run a cross-class search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Blade Lightning Protection Systems 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 blade lightning protection patents
This landscape counts 215 published records across the 2015-2026 window, and because family and record counts coincide in this scope, that figure is also the family total. The count spans receiving offices including the United States, the EPO, WIPO/PCT, India and Germany, so it reflects global filing activity rather than a single jurisdiction. Readers should treat 2025-2026 figures as undercounts, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
The ranking covers 37 companies, with the leading assignee holding 44 records against 14 at fifth place and 6 at tenth — a steep concentration where the top 5 assignees together hold 63.3% of all 215 records and the top 10 hold 80.0%. That leaves a long tail of smaller filers, mostly wind turbine OEMs, blade specialists and their service divisions, each with only a handful of records. Co-filing between separate companies is rare in this field; most IP here is developed in-house.
Filings rose sharply to a peak of 67 in 2021, then fell to 10 by 2024, an 85% decline over that three-year span. That drop should be read as the field settling around proven receptor-and-down-conductor architectures after a period of active experimentation, not as declining interest, since 2025-2026 numbers are still incomplete due to publication lag. Anyone tracking momentum should treat 2024 as the most recent complete year.
The technology composition data shows 91.2% of records sit in F03D (wind motors generally), while measurement, cable-routing, antenna and static-discharge classes each cover well under 11% of records. That imbalance suggests claim space is comparatively open around antenna-compatible receptor design, static-discharge coatings, and detailed hub-bonding resistance test methods, areas that support the core system but are not yet as densely claimed as the receptor-and-conductor path itself. A prior art search limited to F03D alone would miss most of this space.
A representative filing from LM Wind Power, published in December 2023, claims a wind turbine blade with a tip-end lightning receptor, an internal down conductor, and carbon-fibre-reinforced spar caps connected to that conductor through electrically conductive meshes at each spar cap tip. That structure — tying the current path directly into the load-bearing composite rather than treating protection as a separate add-on — reflects where the most-cited records in this dataset also concentrate their claims. Anyone designing a new blade with structural carbon fibre near the tip should check their conductor routing against this pattern specifically.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Blade Lightning Protection Systems 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 Blade Lightning Protection Systems in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole blade lightning protection systems 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.