Storage Conformance Monitoring Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
Filing growth compares 2021 (1 records) with 2024 (0) — 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 31 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What storage conformance monitoring patents actually cover
Storage conformance monitoring sits at the intersection of CCUS measurement, monitoring and verification (MMV) and general information-processing patent classes. The 31 records in scope span 2015 to mid-2026, and the classification mix shows the claims lean toward data handling and reporting workflows — G06Q and G06F together cover the majority of filings — rather than toward sensor or geophysical hardware specific to subsurface CO2 storage. That composition matters for anyone assuming this is a hardware-dense niche: it is not, on this evidence.
Filing activity is concentrated among a small number of assignees, and the receiving-office spread points to the United States and India as the two jurisdictions where most of this activity is being prosecuted, with WIPO PCT filings acting as a secondary funnel into Europe and Canada.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 31 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how the underlying IPC subclasses split when a single record can carry more than one classification.
A single 2018 peak, no clear recovery since
Filings ran from 1 record in 2017 to a peak of 5 in 2018, then never regained that level; the 2021-to-2024 span shows a -100% change, and 2025-2026 figures are still filling in under the usual 18-month publication lag.
Data-processing classes dominate over sensing hardware
G06Q (business/admin data processing) appears in 45.2% of the 31 records and G06F (electric digital data processing) in 29.0%; H04L, H05B, G06N, B64F, G07C and A01B each cover a smaller slice, confirming the field's centre of gravity sits in software and workflow claims rather than physical sensing apparatus.
Shares are the percentage of the 31 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on CCUS Measurement, Monitoring & Verification: Storage Conformance Monitoring Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about ccus measurement, monitoring & verification: storage conformance monitoring patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited record anchors the field's oldest claims
Method for automatically generating checkers for finding functional defects in a description of a circuit (US6609229B1)
A programmed computer generates descriptions of circuits (called checkers) that flag functional defects in a circuit description undergoing functional verification. It converts the circuit description into a graph, examines the graph for a predetermined arrangement of nodes and connections, and automatically generates instructions that flag behaviour matching a known defective pattern. The checkers run during simulation, emulation, or live operation of the circuit on a semiconductor die.Filed by Mentor Graphics Corporation and granted 2003-08-19, this record sits furthest upstream of the corpus and is the most-cited item returned by this search.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20020065864A1 | Systems and method for resource tracking in information management environments | 495 |
| 2 | US6175946B1 | Method for automatically generating checkers for finding functional defects in a description of a circuit | 134 |
| 3 | US6609229B1 | Method for automatically generating checkers for finding functional defects in a description of a circuit | 71 |
| 4 | WO2002039264A2 | Systems and methods for resource tracking in information management environments | 54 |
| 5 | US20160019614A1 | Online marketplace with seller financing | 51 |
| 6 | US20170213282A1 | Online marketplace with seller financing | 26 |
| 7 | US20150134194A1 | System and method for fault diagnosis of aircraft | 26 |
| 8 | US9501791B2 | Online marketplace with seller financing | 25 |
| 9 | WO2016011371A1 | Online marketplace with seller financing | 17 |
| 10 | US11055773B2 | Online marketplace with seller financing | 3 |
Citation counts favour older filings inside any searched corpus; treat this table as a signal of historical influence on the field, not of which claims matter most today.
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 concentration and composition mean for filing strategy
Three figures from this dataset carry direct implications for where a new filer would land and how crowded the claim space already is.
A small set of assignees controls most of the field
The leading assignee alone accounts for 12 of the 31 records in scope, and the top five combined reach 71.0% of all records. That leaves a long tail: the ranking runs to 14 companies total, with the tenth-place holder at a single record.
Peak activity was 2018, not the present
Filings peaked at 5 records in 2018 and the last complete comparison window, 2021 to 2024, shows a full -100% drop. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025-2026 counts should not yet be read as a continued decline.
Workflow and reporting claims outnumber hardware claims
G06Q (business/admin data processing) covers 45.2% of the 31 records and G06F 29.0%, versus single-digit shares for AI-model computing (G06N, 9.7%) and ground-installation hardware (B64F, 6.5%). Claim space here is occupied more by data-handling logic than by sensing apparatus.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to ccus measurement, monitoring & verification: storage conformance monitoring patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| CELLA CHARLES HOWARD | BRUBAKER MARK | 2 |
The strongest co-assignee link in the dataset is a single pair appearing together twice, a reminder that most filings here are prosecuted independently rather than through joint ventures.
Where to go deeper
The figures above set the boundaries of the field. The next step is testing a specific claim or filing angle against them.
Map a candidate claim against the leader's portfolio
With one assignee holding 12 of 31 records, any new filing in storage conformance monitoring should be checked against that portfolio's claim scope before drafting.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaTrack the 2025-2026 filings as they publish
The most recent two years are still incomplete under the standard publication lag; revisit the trend once 2025 filings finish publishing to see whether the post-2018 plateau holds.
Set up a monitoring alert in EurekaCommon questions about storage conformance monitoring patents
This search returns 31 published records covering 2015 through mid-2026. That is a small, tightly scoped corpus rather than a broad technology field, and the assignee ranking behind it lists only 14 companies. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025-2026 count will keep rising as more applications publish.
Filing is concentrated: the leading assignee alone holds 12 of the 31 records, and the top five combined reach 71.0% of all records in scope. The remaining nine ranked companies split the rest of the field thinly, with the tenth-place holder down to a single record. This shape — one dominant filer plus a long tail — is typical of a young, narrowly defined niche rather than a mature industry with many competing programmes.
Filings peaked in 2018 at five records and have not returned to that level since; the last fully comparable window, 2021 to 2024, shows a -100% change. That reads as a slowdown from an early peak rather than sustained growth. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as provisional, since publication typically lags filing by about 18 months and those years are still filling in.
The IPC composition skews toward data processing rather than physical sensing: G06Q (business and administrative data processing) appears in 45.2% of the 31 records and G06F (general digital data processing) in 29.0%. Smaller shares fall in digital transmission, AI-model computing, and ground-installation hardware. In practice this means most claims describe how conformance data is handled, reported or flagged, rather than how it is physically sensed underground.
US6609229B1, assigned to Mentor Graphics Corporation and granted 2003-08-19, is the most-cited record returned by this search, with 71 citations, and its companion filing US6175946B1 adds another 134. Both describe automatically generating checkers that flag functional defects in a circuit description during verification — a general verification-methodology claim rather than a CCUS-specific one. Its high citation count marks it as historically influential prior art that any verification-logic claim in this space should be checked against, not as a current market leader.
Research CCUS Measurement, Monitoring & Verification: Storage Conformance Monitoring Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole ccus measurement, monitoring & verification: storage conformance monitoring 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.