Directional Drilling Trajectory Control Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Filings grew 140% from 2021 to 2024 (5 to 12 records), the last span with complete publication data — a genuine acceleration, not an artefact of the lag.
- One family cluster dominates the citation table closed-loop curvature and toolface control records from a single corporate group draw 25-55 citations each, well above the rest of the set.
- E21B carries 97.1% of the 105 records but control-systems (G05B, 15.2%) and data-processing classes (G06F, G06Q) are thin — that gap is where the open claim space sits.
Filing growth compares 2021 (5 records) with 2024 (12) — 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.
What this landscape covers
Directional drilling trajectory control spans the methods and systems used to plan, steer and correct a wellbore’s path in real time: kickoff point selection, build-up rate management, inclination and azimuth control, slide-drilling technique, correcting for bit walk, and survey-based trajectory correction. This search set draws on 105 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026, spanning both the rotary-steerable hardware side of the problem and the closed-loop software that decides when and how much to steer.
Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend chart will always look thinner than the underlying filing activity actually was — a fall-off in 2025-2026 should be read as incomplete data, not a real slowdown.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 105-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings peaked at 12 in 2017, dipped, then rebuilt to 12 again by 2024 — a 140% rise from 2021's 5 filings over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 show fewer records only because publication has not caught up with filing; they should not be read as a decline.
IPC subclass composition
E21B (earth and rock drilling) covers 97.1% of the 105 records, confirming this is a tightly bounded drilling-methods field rather than a broad software category. G05B (control and regulating systems) at 15.2% and G06F (digital data processing) at 7.6% mark the smaller but strategically important computational layer sitting on top of the mechanical claims; G01V (geophysics/surveying) at 2.9% is comparatively untouched.
Shares are the percentage of the 105 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Directional Drilling Trajectory Control with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about directional drilling trajectory control and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this set
Estimating and predicting wellbore tortuosity (AU2013399137B2)
The claim covers a computer system that receives rotational drilling time and slide drilling time for a wellpath, calculates a tortuosity value from that split, determines whether the wellpath exceeds a tortuosity threshold, and changes a drilling parameter in response. It ties a specific measurable input (the rotational-versus-slide time ratio) to an automatic parameter change.Filed by Landmark Graphics Corporation; published 2016-06-16.
View full record →| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20170306702A1 | Method and system for directional drilling | 55 |
| 2 | US20160160628A1 | Closed Loop Control of Drilling Curvature | 43 |
| 3 | US20150377004A1 | Closed Loop Control of Drilling Toolface | 33 |
| 4 | US20150226052A1 | Estimating and predicting wellbore tortuosity | 33 |
| 5 | WO2016032640A1 | Method and system for directional drilling | 25 |
| 6 | US20170037685A1 | Tool face control of a downhole tool with reduced drill string friction | 23 |
| 7 | WO2014160567A1 | Closed loop control of drilling toolface | 23 |
| 8 | US9945222B2 | Closed loop control of drilling curvature | 17 |
| 9 | US20180363444A1 | Closed loop control of drilling curvature | 16 |
| 10 | US20180283103A1 | Steering systems and methods | 15 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus skew toward older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations; treat them as a signal of influence on the field, 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 →What the data says before you file
Three patterns stand out once the filing trend, citation table and IPC split are read together.
Activity is rebuilding, not cooling
Filings fell from the 2017 peak of 12 before climbing back to 12 by 2024, a 140% rise over that three-year span. Any apparent drop in 2025-2026 reflects publication lag rather than a real pullback in filing.
Closed-loop control records anchor the field
The five most-cited records are all closed-loop curvature, toolface or tortuosity-prediction methods, cited 25 to 55 times each. New filings in this space are almost certain to be examined against this cluster.
The software layer is thin relative to the mechanics
Almost every record touches E21B drilling methods, but only 7.6% touch G06F data processing and 6.7% touch G06Q business/admin processing. The computational and data-handling layer of trajectory control is comparatively under-claimed.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to directional drilling trajectory control, with the prior art for and against each one.
The ranked leaders and where the gate sits
The assignee ranking returned by the data endpoint lists 11 companies, led by a group with 36 records and tapering to a single record at tenth place — a concentrated top with a long tail rather than a broad, even field.
One corporate family sets the pace
Multiple related entities under one corporate umbrella account for the strongest co-assignee pairing in the set (15 shared records), and their closed-loop control records also dominate the citation table.
A real second tier exists
Fifth place holds 16 records, well below the leader but far above the tail — evidence of at least one credible competing filer rather than a single dominant player with no rivals.
A long tail of single- or few-filing entrants
The bottom of the ranking drops to a single record, typical of a field where service companies and drilling contractors file opportunistically around specific tool designs rather than building portfolios.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Schlumberger Technology Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Landmark Graphics Corporation | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology B.V. | 0 | -100% |
| Services Petroliers Schlumberger | 0 | -100% |
| Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Canada Limited | 0 | -100% |
| Schlumberger Holdings Limited | 0 | — |
| Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The ranking, trend and citation data point to specific next questions rather than a single verdict.
Map the closed-loop control claims precisely
The highest-cited records concentrate around closed-loop curvature and toolface control; a claim chart against those specific families is the fastest way to check freedom to operate before drafting.
Explore claims in Eureka →Test the under-claimed branches for a first-filer position
G06F and G01V coverage is thin relative to E21B. Running a deeper prior-art sweep on data-fusion and survey-integration angles can confirm whether a narrow claim there is genuinely open.
Run a white-space search in Eureka →Watch the second-tier filer for competitive moves
The fifth-ranked assignee's 16 records suggest an active competing filer worth monitoring for new publications as the 2025-2026 lag resolves.
Set up assignee monitoring in Eureka →Common questions on this landscape
One corporate family, made up of several related entities filing under different corporate names, tops the ranking with 36 records and also holds the strongest co-assignee pairing in the dataset with 15 shared filings. A second tier exists too: the fifth-ranked assignee holds 16 records, which is a meaningful competing position rather than a token filer. Below that the ranking tapers quickly to a long tail of single-record entrants, so freedom-to-operate work should focus first on the leading family's closed-loop control claims and then check the mid-tier filer for adjacent coverage.
Filings grew 140% from 2021 (5 records) to 2024 (12 records), which is the most recent span the data can support as complete. Counts drop in 2025 and 2026, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than a real slowdown, so those two years should not be read as a trend reversal. The field's actual peak so far was 2017 at 12 filings, meaning 2024 matched but did not yet exceed that earlier high.
The patent claims a computer system that takes rotational drilling time and slide drilling time for a wellpath, calculates a tortuosity value from that split, checks it against a threshold, and automatically changes a drilling parameter when the threshold is exceeded. It is a specific method tied to a defined input pair and an automatic response, filed by Landmark Graphics Corporation and published mid-2016. It would most directly constrain new filings that use the same rotational-versus-slide time ratio as the trigger for parameter changes; approaches using different tortuosity inputs or manual rather than automatic adjustment sit further from its scope.
The technology composition shows E21B (drilling methods) covering 97.1% of the 105 records in scope, while G06F (digital data processing) and G06Q (business/admin data processing) cover only 7.6% and 6.7% respectively, and G01V (geophysics and surveying) just 2.9%. That gap suggests the computational and data-integration layer sitting on top of the mechanical drilling claims is comparatively under-claimed. Specific candidates include automated slide-to-rotate transition logic, survey-correction data fusion, and tighter integration of geophysical survey data into trajectory decisions.
Start with the five most-cited records in the set, all closed-loop control or tortuosity-prediction methods cited between 25 and 55 times, since these anchor the field's claim scope. US20170306702A1 and US20160160628A1 in particular cover closed-loop directional drilling and closed-loop curvature control and are the highest-cited records here. Because citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate them, also run a fresh search for recent unpublished-when-cited filings rather than relying on citation rank alone.
Research Directional Drilling Trajectory Control in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole directional drilling trajectory control 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.