Brake-by-Wire Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- No single filer dominates. the leader holds 348 records and the top 5 combined account for just 10.0% of all 8,391 records in scope.
- Filing has already peaked. activity crested at 403 records in 2021 and has declined through the 2022 midpoint of 355 toward 2026.
- Claims cluster in mechanical brake classes. B60T and F16D together anchor the field while software-adjacent classes like G06F and H04W remain comparatively thin.
What this patent set covers
This landscape covers 8,391 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine brake actuation terms with redundancy-specific claim language: pedal decoupling, pressure build-up, backup energy paths, blending, and verification. The search string is deliberately narrow — it is not every brake patent, but the subset where fallback and redundancy behavior is claimed explicitly, which is the part of the field that matters most when an actuator, sensor, or energy source fails mid-stroke.
Filing activity concentrates in mechanical and hydraulic brake classifications rather than in the digital-control classes that brake-by-wire architectures ultimately depend on, which is a useful signal for where claim drafting has and has not caught up with system design.
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 8,391-record set: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim language.
A field that has already crested
Annual filings rose from 326 in 2017 to a peak of 403 in 2021, held near 355 at the 2022 midpoint, and have declined since — reaching 107 in 2026, a year that is still partial and will rise somewhat as later filings publish. The shape is flat-to-declining rather than a technology still building momentum.
Mechanical brake classes still carry the claim load
B60T (vehicle brakes and braking) appears in 42.4% of the 8,391 records and F16D (clutches and brakes) in 14.1%, together dwarfing the control and communications classes — B60W at 6.7%, B60L at 6.5%, G06F at 4.2%, H04W at 3.9%, H04L at 3.7%, and G01M at 3.7%. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100%; the pattern to read is which classes are thick and which are thin, not a total.
Shares are the percentage of the 8,391 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Brake-by-Wire Redundancy and Fallback with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about brake-by-wire redundancy and fallback and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative filing and the most-cited prior art
US20180105154A1 — Brake booster system, and method for assisting a braking operation of a motor vehicle
A brake booster system for assisting a braking operation of a motor vehicle having a brake booster is provided. The brake booster system may include a pressure piston of a brake master cylinder, an actuating element which is configured for deflecting the pressure piston, and a brake booster which is divided into two chambers by way of a diaphragm, the first chamber is connected to the pressure piston and has a pressure p1 and the second chamber is connected to the actuating element and has a pressure p2. Furthermore, in the brake booster system, there is a pressure build up apparatus which is configured to raise the pressure p2 above the pressure p1 by way of said…Filed by Ford Global Technologies, LLC, published 2018-04-19.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20160134840A1 | Avatar-Mediated Telepresence Systems with Enhanced Filtering | 701 |
| 2 | US20050131597A1 | System and method for vehicle driver behavior analysis and evaluation | 581 |
| 3 | US6647328B2 | Electrically controlled automated devices to control equipment and machinery with remote control and accounta… | 521 |
| 4 | US20010056544A1 | Electrically controlled automated devices to operate, slow, guide, stop and secure, equipment and machinery f… | 485 |
| 5 | US20080091309A1 | Electrically controlled automated devices to operate, slow, guide, stop and secure, equipment and machinery f… | 351 |
| 6 | US5420794A | Automated highway system for controlling the operating parameters of a vehicle | 319 |
| 7 | US6704434B1 | Vehicle driving information storage apparatus and vehicle driving information storage method | 312 |
| 8 | US7389178B2 | System and method for vehicle driver behavior analysis and evaluation | 300 |
| 9 | US20190291728A1 | Systems and methods for navigating a vehicle | 294 |
| 10 | US20070198145A1 | Systems and methods for switching between autonomous and manual operation of a vehicle | 284 |
High citation counts here mostly reflect age and breadth of underlying automation and remote-control patents rather than current brake-by-wire relevance — several of the most-cited records predate brake-by-wire redundancy as a distinct claim category and are cited for general automated-control concepts.
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 mean for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the IPC composition are read together.
Leadership is real but not dominant
The leading assignee holds 348 records, with the fifth-ranked entity at 108 and the tenth at 89. The top 5 combined account for only 10.0% of all 8,391 records in scope, and the top 10 for 16.1% — a long tail of the remaining ranked entities and unranked filers holds the majority of the field. No single company can be treated as a gatekeeper across brake-by-wire redundancy as a whole.
The filing wave has passed its crest
Annual filings rose from 326 in 2017 to a peak of 403 in 2021, sat near 355 at the 2022 midpoint, and have fallen each year since. Recent-year momentum by several previously active assignees is sharply negative, with year-over-year declines in the 80-100% range among filers who were building positions a few years ago.
Mechanical claims still outweigh control claims
B60T and F16D together anchor the bulk of the filing activity, while the classes that describe digital control, wireless coordination and data processing sit far lower — G06F at 4.2%, H04W at 3.9%, H04L at 3.7%. That gap suggests the control-software layer of brake-by-wire fallback is comparatively under-claimed relative to the mechanical actuation layer.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to brake-by-wire redundancy and fallback, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Kelsey-Hayes Company | GANZEL BLAISE J | 8 |
| Qualcomm Inc. | HE LINHAI | 5 |
| Robert Bosch GmbH | ROBERT BOSCH CORP | 4 |
| Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG | LINKENBACH STEFFEN | 4 |
| Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG | DRUMM STEFAN A | 4 |
| Qualcomm Inc. | ZHENG RUIMING | 4 |
| Robert Bosch GmbH | Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW) | 3 |
| Robert Bosch GmbH | FRAISSE EMMANUELLE | 3 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pairing links 8 shared records — most filers in this space patent independently rather than through joint development structures.
Who holds position, and where the gate still opens
The ranking spans 100 companies, but the concentration figures show most of the field's records sit outside the leading names.
A wide filing base, not a monopoly
The top-ranked assignee's 348 records place it well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 108, but that gap narrows quickly further down the ranking, and the top 5 combined still represent only 10.0% of all 8,391 records in scope.
Even active filers are pulling back
Several previously prolific assignees show single-digit or zero filings in the latest year, with year-over-year declines ranging from roughly -86% to -100%. That pattern across multiple leaders, not just one, points to a field where claim positions were staked earlier in the period rather than being actively contested now.
Development happens in-house
With only 10 co-assignee pairs across the dataset and the strongest linking just 8 shared records, joint filings are the exception. Most redundancy and fallback claims are prosecuted by a single corporate entity rather than through named engineering partnerships.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| IPGATE AG | 1 | -86% |
| Qualcomm Inc. | 1 | -89% |
| Robert Bosch GmbH | 0 | -100% |
| Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG | 0 | — |
| Kelsey-Hayes Company | 0 | — |
| Westinghouse Air Brake Company | 0 | — |
| Volvo Truck Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| ZF Active Safety GmbH | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The figures here describe the shape of the field. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going deeper on specific claims and specific assignees.
Check claim scope on the leading assignee's active family
A 348-record position is not evenly distributed across sub-technologies; some of it may sit in mechanical actuation claims that do not block a control-layer filing.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaMap the under-claimed control-software branches
The gap between B60T/F16D density and G06F/H04W/H04L density suggests specific claim language in the control layer may still be open.
Run a white-space search in EurekaTrack why recent-year filing has declined
A field falling from a 2021 peak of 403 to 107 in 2026 could mean claim space is filled, priorities shifted, or standards consolidated filing strategy — each has different implications.
Compare filer momentum in EurekaCommon questions on brake-by-wire redundancy patents
Across the 8,391 records in this dataset, the leading assignee holds 348 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked entity at 108 and the tenth at 89. But that leadership is not dominance: the top 5 assignees combined account for only 10.0% of all records in scope, and the top 10 for 16.1%, which means most of the field's patent activity sits with a long tail of smaller filers rather than a handful of gatekeepers. Anyone doing freedom-to-operate work needs to look well beyond the top names.
No — filing activity in this dataset peaked at 403 records in 2021, held near 355 at the 2022 midpoint, and has declined in every year since, down to 107 in 2026. That 2026 figure is a partial year and will rise somewhat as later filings publish, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, but the multi-year trend from 2021 onward is clearly downward rather than flat. Several previously active assignees also show year-over-year declines in the 80-100% range in the most recent year.
The IPC composition shows heavy concentration in mechanical brake classifications — B60T at 42.4% of records and F16D at 14.1% — versus much thinner coverage in classes tied to digital control and communication, such as G06F (4.2%), H04W (3.9%) and H04L (3.7%). That imbalance suggests the software and communications layer of redundancy and fallback behavior, including backup-path handshake logic and blended-control transition algorithms, carries less claim density than the physical actuation hardware. Areas like energy-source switching logic and fallback self-test diagnostics are worth checking specifically before drafting new claims there.
US20180105154A1, filed by Ford Global Technologies and published 2018-04-19, claims a brake booster system that uses a two-chamber diaphragm arrangement and a pressure build-up apparatus to raise pressure in one chamber above the other, assisting the braking operation. It is a specific hydraulic pressure-differential mechanism rather than a broad claim over brake-by-wire redundancy generally. Designs that achieve backup pressure through a different mechanism — for example a separate electromechanical actuator rather than a diaphragm-divided booster — would need their own claim analysis but are not automatically blocked by this filing's specific structure.
The most-cited records in this corpus include general automated-control and remote-monitoring patents with citation counts well over 300, some describing avatar telepresence or generic remote equipment control rather than brake systems specifically. This happens because citation counts inside any searched corpus favor older, broadly-worded records that get cited across many unrelated applications, not necessarily the patents most relevant to current brake-by-wire engineering. Treat high citation counts here as a signal of general influence in automated-control prior art, not as a ranking of technical importance to brake redundancy design today.
Research Brake-by-Wire Redundancy and Fallback in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole brake-by-wire redundancy and fallback 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.