Down the Hole Hammer Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 69.9% concentration. The top five assignees hold 114 of the 163 records in scope — a field where claim space is already staked out at the top.
- E21B dominates at 80.4%. Earth and rock drilling classifications cover four in five records, while adjacent classes like B23B and E02D barely register.
- 2022 was the peak filing year at 8. Filing activity has not built a sustained multi-year trend since, and the most recent year is still undercounted due to publication lag.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 163 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the down the hole hammer patent record shows
Down the hole (DTH) hammer drilling patents concentrate heavily around percussion mechanics for well and rock drilling — piston-driven impact assemblies, choke and bailing air management, and hammer bit wear characteristics. The dataset spans 163 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from a search string targeting core DTH hardware terms (hammer bit, air hammer drilling) alongside performance parameters (impact frequency, bailing velocity, carbide button wear, hole straightness, piston stroke).
Filing offices skew toward the United States, Australia and Europe, with meaningful South African and Canadian activity reflecting mining and water-well drilling markets. The picture is one of an established mechanical technology with steady, modest filing rather than a fast-emerging field.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Trend and technology composition
The figures below are drawn directly from the 163 records in scope, covering the full 2015-2026 window and the eight IPC subclasses these records touch.
A flat, non-cumulative filing curve
Filings moved from zero in 2017 to a peak of 8 in 2022, with 2026 showing only 1 filing so far — expected, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months and the most recent year is always understated. There are too few complete years post-lag to state a growth rate, and none is claimed here.
E21B dominates; adjacent classes are thin
E21B (earth and rock drilling for wells) appears in 80.4% of the 163 records, dwarfing E01F and E21C (5.5% each) and B25D (4.9%). Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares sum to more than 100% — the concentration in E21B still signals that most inventive effort sits squarely on core hammer mechanics rather than adjacent tooling or foundation work.
Shares are the percentage of the 163 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Down the Hole Hammer Technology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about down the hole hammer technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this dataset
Dynamic seal tube for a down hole hammer drill (US20160153237A1)
The present invention is directed to a dynamic seal tube for use in pressurized fluid-driven down hole hammer drills. The dynamic seal tube is a tube that slides within the bore of the piston and the anvil portion of the drill bit and co-operatively acts to release different volumes of pressurized fluid from the lower chamber when the piston is in different predetermined positions.Filed by Drillroc Pneumatic Pty Ltd, published 2016-06-02.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5305837A | Air percussion drilling assembly for directional drilling applications | 104 |
| 2 | US5322136A | Air percussion drilling assembly | 52 |
| 3 | US20190257197A1 | Vibration while drilling data processing methods | 29 |
| 4 | US20100012380A1 | Percussion Drilling Assembly and Hammer Bit with an Adjustable Choke | 28 |
| 5 | US20150129316A1 | Top Mounted Choke For Percussion Tool | 22 |
| 6 | US4215901A | Hydraulically actuated tool for mechanically splitting rock-like material | 21 |
| 7 | US7267185B2 | Bit retainer system | 20 |
| 8 | US20070137895A1 | Percussion drill bit with V-shaped splines | 19 |
| 9 | EP0580056A1 | Air percussion drilling assembly for directional drillig applications | 19 |
| 10 | US5320188A | Underground mining system | 18 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings; treat them as a signal of influence on the field rather than a measure of 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 data means for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the IPC mix and the citation table are read together.
Core mechanics are claimed by a small group
With 114 of 163 records held by five assignees, the fundamental piston, choke and bailing-air claim space is largely occupied. New entrants filing on the same mechanics face dense prior art from a handful of established drilling equipment makers.
Almost all inventive effort sits in one IPC subclass
E21B (earth and rock drilling for wells) carries four out of five records. Classes like B23B (turning and boring, 1.2%) and E02D (foundations, 2.5%) are barely touched, suggesting little cross-pollination between DTH hammer mechanics and adjacent drilling or foundation disciplines.
Filing activity is steady, not accelerating
The filing curve moved from zero in 2017 to a single peak year of 8 in 2022 without building a consistent multi-year climb. Combined with typical 18-month publication lag, the most recent years understate true filing activity, but there is no visible surge to report.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to down the hole hammer technology, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where the gate stands
The ranked leaders account for the large majority of filings, with the leader holding 36 records against a fifth-place figure of 14 and a tenth-place figure of just 3 — a steep drop-off after the top tier.
A clear leader, then a fast taper
The top assignee holds 36 records, more than double the fifth-place figure of 14. The gap between first and fifth position is wide enough that a new entrant should expect the leader's claim scope to be the first thing checked in freedom-to-operate work.
The tail thins quickly after the top ten
By tenth place, filing counts fall to 3 records. Combined with the top 10 combined share of 88.3% of all 163 records, this confirms a genuine long tail below the leading group rather than a broad, evenly distributed field.
Momentum has cooled across the board
Recent-year filings by the tracked assignees show only one company filing in the latest year at a single record; several established filers, including one with a -100% year-on-year change, show zero. This points to a lull rather than a shift toward a new leader.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| RSG INTERNATIONAL CORP | 1 | — |
| Mincon International | 0 | — |
| Smith International Inc | 0 | — |
| Caterpillar Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Drillroc Pneumatic Pty Ltd | 0 | — |
| VAREL MINING & IND LLC | 0 | — |
| Varel International Industries | 0 | — |
| Ignis Technologies | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps for teams evaluating a filing or freedom-to-operate position in DTH hammer technology.
Map claim scope against the top assignees
With 69.9% of records held by five companies, a freedom-to-operate review should start with the leader's granted claim families before evaluating any new filing on core piston or choke mechanics.
Explore assignee claim scope in EurekaProbe the under-claimed IPC branches
B23B, E02D and B23P together cover a small share of records despite sitting adjacent to core E21B drilling mechanics, suggesting room for claims that bridge hammer performance with foundation or metalworking applications.
Run a white-space search in EurekaTrack the most-cited prior art directly
The highest-citation records in this dataset, several from the 1990s and early 2010s, still anchor examiner search results for new filings on percussion drilling assemblies and choke mechanisms.
Review cited prior art in EurekaCommon questions about down the hole hammer patents
The dataset ranks 25 companies by patent family count, with the leading assignee holding 36 of the 163 records in scope. The top five assignees combined hold 114 records, or 69.9% of the field, and the top ten hold 88.3%. This means a small group of established drilling equipment manufacturers controls most of the documented claim space, and any new entrant should expect to encounter their prior art directly.
The overwhelming majority, 80.4% of the 163 records, classify under E21B, the IPC subclass for earth and rock drilling in wells. Smaller shares touch E01F (road and rail accessories), E21C (mining and quarrying), and B25D (percussive tools), each around 5% or less. Because a single patent can carry multiple IPC classes, these figures add up to more than 100%, but the pattern is clear: claims cluster tightly around core hammer drilling mechanics rather than spreading into adjacent equipment categories.
The filing trend moved from zero recorded filings in 2017 to a peak of 8 in 2022, without establishing a sustained multi-year upward trend. There are too few complete years remaining after accounting for typical 18-month publication lag to state a reliable growth rate, so none is claimed here. The most recent year, 2026, shows only 1 filing so far, which understates actual activity because later filings have not yet published.
IPC classes adjacent to the dominant E21B cluster are thinly filed: B23B (turning and boring) appears in only 1.2% of the 163 records, and E02D (foundations) in 2.5%. This suggests limited patent activity bridging DTH hammer mechanics with foundation drilling or precision boring applications, areas where a well-drafted claim connecting hammer performance parameters to these adjacent uses may face less crowded prior art than the core E21B space.
US20160153237A1, filed by Drillroc Pneumatic Pty Ltd and published in 2016, claims a dynamic seal tube that slides within the piston bore and anvil portion of a down hole hammer drill to release pressurized fluid at different piston positions. It sits within the dominant E21B classification alongside the field's most-cited prior art, including US5305837A and US5322136A on air percussion drilling assemblies. Anyone designing choke or fluid-release mechanisms for DTH hammers should review this filing's specific claim language on piston-position-dependent fluid release before finalizing a similar mechanism.
Research Down the Hole Hammer Technology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole down the hole hammer technology 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.