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/digital-twins-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Industrial Automation & ControlDigital Twins Patents: Who Files, Where Claims Concentrate
- Filing plateaued, not collapsed. volume moved from 350 in 2021 to 347 in 2024, essentially flat (-1%) after a 2023 peak of 520 — read later years with caution since publication lags filing by about 18 months.
- The top of the field is crowded but not locked up. the five largest filers hold 30.9% of all 2,724 records in scope, and the next five add another 17.3 points to reach 48.2% — leaving over half the field to a long tail.
- Software and control classes dominate, robotics barely registers. G06F and G05B each cover roughly a third of records, while B25J (manipulators & robots) sits at just 3.3% — a gap worth checking before assuming digital twins are a hardware story.
2,724
Published Records
31%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-1%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (350 records) with 2024 (347) — 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 2,724 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What the digital twin patent record actually covers
The dataset in scope spans 2,724 published records filed against digital twin models, virtual asset models and related equipment-state or failure-prediction claims, searched jointly with control-network and production-data terms. That combination pulls in filings from process automation vendors, industrial software firms and telecom infrastructure players alike, which is why the technology mix leans toward data processing and control classes rather than pure robotics or sensing hardware. Family-level counting is used throughout so continuation filings and multi-jurisdiction copies of the same invention are not double-counted.
Filing activity starts thin in 2017 at 14 records, climbs through a multi-year run, and peaks at 520 in 2023 before the most recent years taper — an artifact of publication lag rather than a real slowdown. The receiving-office spread shows the United States as the dominant filing venue, with WIPO/PCT and European filings roughly matched, and China, India and the UK following behind.
Annual filings, 2017–2026 (2026 partial)
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Digital Twins Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Filing & Classification Data
Filing trend and technology composition
The two views below cover the same 2,724 records from different angles: one tracks when filings happened, the other tracks what they claim.
Filings climbed sharply then plateaued
Annual filings rose from 14 in 2017 to a peak of 520 in 2023. The 2021-to-2024 comparison (350 to 347, a -1% change) is the most reliable recent read on momentum; 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in as publications catch up to filing dates.
Software and control classes lead; robotics and imaging trail
G06F (38.2% of records) and G05B (35.6%) anchor the field, with H04L (24.0%) and G06Q (22.8%) close behind, reflecting how much of digital twin patenting is about data handling, control logic and commercial platforms rather than physical robotics (B25J at 3.3%) or vision systems (G06T at 3.8%). Since records can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares sum to more than 100% of the 2,724 records in scope.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,724 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 Digital Twins Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Digital Twins Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about digital twins patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative Filing
A representative digital twin claim
Representative Record · US20220191648A1
Digital twin framework for next generation networks
INTEL CORPORATION
Systems and techniques for a digital twin framework for next generation networks are described. A digital twin model is generated for physical nodes of an edge network, including a digital twin for a physical node. When an error is identified in the physical node or its digital twin, the model is updated to halt communication with the affected node or its digital twin, and a path is created to another physical node or its digital twin instead.Filed by Intel Corporation, published 2022-06-16.
Most-cited records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20200259896A1 | Industrial Automation with 5G and Beyond | 750 |
| 2 | US20200348662A1 | Platform for facilitating development of intelligence in an industrial internet of things system | 733 |
| 3 | US20210157312A1 | Intelligent vibration digital twin systems and methods for industrial environments | 716 |
| 4 | US20200225655A1 | Methods, systems, kits and apparatuses for monitoring and managing industrial settings in an industrial inter… | 563 |
| 5 | US20210342836A1 | Systems and methods for controlling rights related to digital knowledge | 470 |
| 6 | US20220366494A1 | Market orchestration system for facilitating electronic marketplace transactions | 442 |
| 7 | US20220108262A1 | Industrial digital twin systems and methods with echelons of executive, advisory and operations messaging and… | 387 |
| 8 | US20220187847A1 | Robot Fleet Management for Value Chain Networks | 341 |
| 9 | US20210133670A1 | Control tower and enterprise management platform with a machine learning/artificial intelligence managing sen… | 340 |
| 10 | US20230123322A1 | Predictive Model Data Stream Prioritization | 338 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence, not 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 Digital Twins Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. 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 →Field Insights
What the numbers mean for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are read against each other rather than in isolation.
Concentration
30.9% / 48.2%
top 5 / top 10 share of 2,724 records
The top of the field is dense but not closed
The five largest filers together hold 30.9% of all 2,724 records in scope, and the top ten reach 48.2%. That leaves more than half the field outside the leading group, which is unusual for a technology this heavily filed and suggests room for a well-differentiated entrant rather than only incumbents defending prior claims.
Based on the 100-company assignee ranking returned for this dataset.
Momentum
350 → 347
annual filings, 2021 to 2024
Growth has flattened, not reversed
Filings rose steeply into a 2023 peak of 520 before settling near 2021 levels by 2024, a -1% change over that span. Because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, the apparent dip in 2025-2026 data should not be read as a real slowdown until later filings finish publishing.
Trend uses the 2021-2024 window as the most complete comparison available.
Technology mix
38.2% vs 3.3%
G06F share vs B25J share of records
This is a software field wearing a hardware label
Digital twin claims cluster overwhelmingly in electric data processing (G06F, 38.2%) and control/regulating systems (G05B, 35.6%), while manipulator and robotics claims (B25J) cover only 3.3% of the 2,724 records. Filers building physical twin hardware are operating in comparatively open claim space.
Shares sum above 100% because records can 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 digital twins patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Digital Twins Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Competitive Landscape
Who is filing, and where activity is cooling
The leading filers span process-control incumbents, industrial software platforms and infrastructure conglomerates, but recent-year momentum is uneven even among them.
Leader
217 records
leading assignee's family count
One filer sits well ahead of fifth place
The top-ranked assignee holds 217 records, more than double the fifth-place count of 105 and well ahead of tenth place at 84. The gap from first to fifth is steeper than the gap from fifth to tenth, pointing to one dominant filer rather than a tight cluster at the very top.
Counts are family-level, from the 100-company assignee ranking.
Recent momentum
-80% to -100% YoY
latest-year change for several ranked filers
Several established filers pulled back sharply
More than one previously active filer shows a steep year-on-year drop, including cases falling to zero filings in the latest year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, some of this reflects incomplete recent data rather than a genuine exit from the space.
Momentum figures are latest-year-over-prior-year, per assignee.
Collaboration
6 pairs
co-assignee pairs identified
Co-filing is rare and concentrated around one filer
Only six co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest of these repeatedly pair the same lead filer with individual named co-inventors rather than with other companies. Most patenting in this field happens under a single assignee rather than through joint filings.
Based on co-assignee pair frequency across the 2,724 records.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Pure Storage, Inc. | 3 | -81% |
| STRONG FORCE TX PORTFOLIO 2018 LLC | 2 | -80% |
| Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | 1 | — |
| Strong Force VCN Portfolio 2019 LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Johnson Controls Technology Company | 0 | -100% |
| BASF SE | 0 | -100% |
| Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Honeywell International Inc. | 0 | -100% |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Digital Twins Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps
Where to take this analysis
The figures here describe the field as a whole; a specific filing decision needs the underlying claims read against your own draft.
Check the white space before drafting
Robotics and vision-based twin synchronization show thin coverage relative to the software-heavy core. Confirm whether that gap holds for your specific claim before assuming it is open.
Explore white space in EurekaRead the leading filer's claim scope directly
Concentration at the top means a handful of portfolios likely cover adjacent ground to any new filing. Pull their independent claims before finalizing scope.
Review leading portfolios in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Digital Twins Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about digital twin patents
The dataset in scope contains 2,724 published records at the family level, covering filings from 2017 through a partial 2026. Annual volume grew from 14 records in 2017 to a peak of 520 in 2023, then settled to roughly 2021 levels by 2024. Because publication lags filing by about 18 months, the most recent one to two years will keep filling in as more filings publish.
The assignee ranking covers 100 companies, with the leading filer holding 217 records, more than double the fifth-place count of 105. The five largest filers together account for 30.9% of all 2,724 records in scope, and the top ten reach 48.2%, meaning over half the field sits outside the leading group. The mix includes process-control incumbents, industrial software platforms and broader technology conglomerates rather than a single dominant sector.
Growth has flattened rather than continued climbing. Filings moved from 350 in 2021 to 347 in 2024, a -1% change, after peaking at 520 in 2023. This should not be read as decline: because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are understated and will rise as more filings publish.
The largest IPC categories are G06F (electric digital data processing, 38.2% of the 2,724 records) and G05B (control and regulating systems, 35.6%), followed by H04L (digital information transmission, 24.0%) and G06Q (business and admin data processing, 22.8%). Robotics-specific claims under B25J make up only 3.3% of records, and image processing under G06T is 3.8%, suggesting the field is currently defined more by software and control logic than by physical robotic hardware. A single record can carry multiple IPC classes, so these percentages add up to more than 100%.
Robotics and manipulator claims (B25J) and image-based twin synchronization (G06T) each cover under 4% of the 2,724 records in scope, well below the software and control classes that dominate the field. That gap suggests physical-hardware and vision-based approaches to digital twins are comparatively under-claimed relative to data-processing and control-logic approaches. Anyone filing in those adjacent branches should still verify the specific claim language against the leading portfolios before assuming the space is genuinely open.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Digital Twins Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Digital Twins Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole digital twins 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.