Docking and Capture Mechanisms Patents: Who Leads, Gaps 2026
- One legacy filer dominates. the leading assignee accounts for 29 of the records in the ranked set, against a second-place count of 2 or fewer for the rest of the field.
- Filing peaked in 2020 at 11 records and has since tapered toward zero in the most recent, still-partial year — read the tail as a publication-lag artefact, not a real drop-off.
- Manipulator and fastener classes are thin. B25J (manipulators) sits at 25.0% of records and F16B (fasteners) at just 5.0%, well behind the B64G spacecraft class that anchors 97.5%.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent filings at the intersection of spacecraft docking mechanisms, satellite capture mechanisms and soft capture rings, narrowed to records that also address capture envelope geometry, latch engagement force, misalignment compensation, contact load attenuation, androgynous interfaces or umbilical connector mating. It spans 40 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from filings at the EPO, USPTO, Austrian, German, Canadian and PCT offices.
The field sits squarely inside on-orbit servicing and robotics: the hardware that lets two spacecraft, or a servicer and a client satellite, close the last few metres and lock together without a human hand to guide the final contact. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025-2026 counts in any trend chart understate real filing activity.
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 40-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings ran at 7 in 2017 and rose to a peak of 11 in 2020, the busiest year in the set so far. The count trails to 0 in 2026, but that year is still open for publication and should not be read as a stop in activity.
IPC subclass composition
B64G (cosmonautics and spacecraft) appears on 97.5% of the 40 records, confirming the field is filed almost entirely as spacecraft hardware rather than general robotics. B64D (aircraft equipment) reaches 47.5%, B25J (manipulators and robots) 25.0%, and F16B (fasteners) only 5.0% — because a record can carry more than one class, these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 40 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Docking and Capture Mechanisms with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about docking and capture mechanisms and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this set
US6354540B1 — Androgynous, reconfigurable closed loop feedback controlled low impact docking system with load sensing electromagnetic capture ring
The present invention relates to a fully androgynous, reconfigurable closed loop feedback controlled low impact docking system with load sensing electromagnetic capture ring. The docking system of the present invention preferably comprises two docking assemblies, each docking assembly comprising a load sensing ring having an outer face, one of more electromagnets, one or more load cells coupled to said load sensing ring. The docking assembly further comprises a plurality of actuator arms coupled to said load sensing ring and capable of dynamically adjusting the orientation of said load sensing ring and a reconfigurable closed loop control system.Filed by NASA; cited 156 times, the highest count in this set.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6354540B1 | Androgynous, reconfigurable closed loop feedback controlled low impact docking system with load sensing elect… | 156 |
| 2 | US7543779B1 | Low-impact mating system | 92 |
| 3 | US20130249229A1 | Spacecraft capture mechanism | 72 |
| 4 | US20200102102A1 | Spacecraft docking system and method | 29 |
| 5 | WO2013138936A1 | Spacecraft capture mechanism | 17 |
| 6 | US20160332308A1 | Spacecraft capture mechanism | 8 |
| 7 | US20230028104A1 | Refueling tool and system incorporating the refueling | 6 |
| 8 | US20200361640A1 | Berthing system for spacecraft | 6 |
| 9 | US11053031B2 | Spacecraft docking system and method | 6 |
| 10 | US12071262B2 | Refueling tool and system incorporating the refueling | 5 |
Ranked by citation count within this searched corpus; older records accumulate citations simply by being available longer, so treat this as a signal of influence rather than current relevance.
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 filing pattern tells a claim drafter
Three read-throughs from the trend, the citation table and the co-filing pattern.
One filer set the terms of the art early
The leading assignee's count of 29 dwarfs the fifth-place count of 2, and the most-cited record in the whole set — US6354540B1, cited 156 times — sits with that same lineage. New entrants are filing into a field where the foundational androgynous-interface claims are already staked out.
Activity peaked in 2020, not now
Filing built from 7 records in 2017 to a peak of 11 in 2020, then eased off. The apparent decline into 2025-2026 is partly real and partly the normal 18-month lag between filing and publication catching up with recent activity.
Fastener-level claims are the thinnest slice
B64G spacecraft claims dominate at 97.5% of records, but the mechanical fastening layer captured under F16B sits at only 5.0%. That gap is worth checking against the manipulator-class 25.0% share before assuming the mechanical interface is well covered.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to docking and capture mechanisms, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the roster thins out
Eight assignees make up the entire ranked set returned by this search — this is not a top-50 or top-100 cut, it is the whole list.
A single legacy aerospace filer anchors the set
The top-ranked assignee holds 29 of the records in scope, an order of magnitude ahead of the rest of the ranking, and its lineage traces to the most-cited patent in the dataset, US6354540B1.
Individual inventors hold small, tightly linked clusters
Several named individuals appear as co-assignees on overlapping pairs of records, forming a small dense cluster distinct from the corporate filers rather than a broad independent-inventor tail.
No assignee shows recent-year activity in this cut
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including the leader, shows 0 filings in the latest year of this dataset. Given the 18-month publication lag, this reads as reporting delay rather than an actual halt in R&D.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) | 0 | — |
| Shanghai Institute of Spaceflight System Engineering | 0 | — |
| Boeing | 0 | — |
| MORALES RAY H | 0 | — |
| LEWIS JAMES L | 0 | — |
| LE THANG D | 0 | — |
| CARROLL MONTY B | 0 | — |
| ROBERTSON BRANDAN R | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps for teams deciding where to file or how to design around existing claims.
Map the fastener-level gap
F16B claims sit at only 5.0% of records against a 97.5% spacecraft-class base. Before assuming this layer is open, check whether it is thin because it is unclaimed or because it is folded into the broader B64G claims.
Explore IPC gaps in EurekaTrace the leader's claim scope
With 29 of the ranked records and the top-cited patent in the set, the leading assignee's claim family is the first thing to clear before designing a new capture-ring mechanism.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaWatch for the lag catching up
The 2026 count of 0 is a publication artefact, not a stop in filing. Recheck this trend in six to twelve months once the 2025-2026 cohort finishes publishing.
Set a filing alert in EurekaCommon questions on docking and capture mechanism patents
One assignee leads the ranked set with 29 of the records tracked in this dataset, far ahead of the next entities, which sit at 2 or fewer each. That leader's lineage also holds the most-cited record in the field, US6354540B1, an androgynous electromagnetic capture-ring docking system originally filed by NASA. Anyone entering this space should treat that filer's claim family as the first thing to check for overlap.
An androgynous interface means both docking halves are identical, so either spacecraft can act as the active or passive side rather than needing a fixed male/female pairing. It matters here because the foundational patent in this dataset, US6354540B1, is built around exactly this feature combined with load-sensing electromagnetic capture, and it carries 156 citations, the highest in the set. New designs that claim androgynous capability need to map their claims against that patent's scope specifically.
Filing rose from 7 records in 2017 to a peak of 11 in 2020, then appears to decline toward 2026. That apparent decline is not fully real: publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so the last one to two years in any patent trend are understated. A meaningful growth rate cannot be calculated from this dataset because too few complete years remain after accounting for that lag.
Relative to the 97.5% of records touching the core spacecraft-docking class (B64G), fastener-level mechanisms under F16B appear in only 5.0% of records, and manipulator-assisted capture (B25J) in 25.0%. That gap suggests the mechanical fastening and handoff-robotics layers are less densely claimed than the docking-system-level architecture, though this should be verified against full claim text before treating it as open white space.
Yes, to a degree. Several named individuals appear repeatedly as co-assignees across overlapping record pairs, forming a small, tightly linked cluster distinct from the corporate filers in this ranking. They do not approach the scale of the leading corporate assignee's 29 records, but their repeated pairing suggests a specific collaborative group working a narrower slice of the technology rather than isolated single filings.
Research Docking and Capture Mechanisms in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole docking and capture mechanisms 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.