DCT Shift Control Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- One leader, then a steep drop. the top assignee holds 36 records against a fifth-place count of 11 and a tenth-place count of just 1.
- Filing has cooled off its 2017 peak. the trend ran 15 filings in 2017 and shows 0 in the most recent, still-partial year — read the tail end as reporting lag, not a stopped field.
- Claims cluster in gearing and vehicle control, not clutches alone. F16H and B60W each cover more than half of the 94 records, while clutch-specific F16D sits at 38.3%.
What this landscape covers
Dual clutch transmission (DCT) shift control is the software and hardware logic that hands torque between two clutches during a gear change — managing torque phase and inertia phase timing, clutch slip speed, engine torque reduction and the resulting shift jerk. This dataset covers 94 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that name these control mechanisms directly in their claims or descriptions, drawn from a search targeting torque-phase, inertia-phase, slip-speed and handover-coordination language rather than DCT hardware in general.
The scope is narrow by design: it isolates the control-logic layer of DCT shifting from the broader universe of transmission mechanical design, so the assignee ranking and IPC composition below reflect who is actively claiming shift-control strategy rather than who builds transmissions.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 94-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings peaked at 15 in 2017. The line tapers toward the present, including a reading of 0 in the most recent year — expected, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months and the most recent year in any such trend understates real activity.
IPC subclass composition
F16H (gearing and transmissions) appears on 62.8% of the 94 records and B60W (hybrid/joint vehicle control) on 52.1%, confirming that shift-control claims are written jointly across mechanical gearing and vehicle-level control logic. F16D (clutches and brakes) trails at 38.3%, and the smaller classes — B60K, G06F, B60L, B60T — each cover under 10% of records, since a single record can carry several classes these shares sum to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 94 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Dual Clutch Transmission Shift Control with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about dual clutch transmission shift control and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this set
Control method of dual clutch transmission for hybrid electric vehicle and control system for the same (US10046642B2)
The method determines whether a hybrid vehicle has entered a power-off down-shift state, then checks whether the transmission has entered a torque phase. It calculates a compensatory torque to offset the change in regenerative braking force that follows a gear-ratio change, scaled to how far the torque phase has progressed.Assignee: Hyundai Motor Company · Published 2018-08-14
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20130274062A1 | Control device for dual clutch transmission and control method for dual clutch transmission | 37 |
| 2 | US20110263383A1 | Shift sequencing systems for a dual clutch transmission | 26 |
| 3 | US20120029777A1 | Gear preselect systems for a dual clutch transmission | 23 |
| 4 | US20180118185A1 | Methods and systems for engine-off disengagement of a vehicle park state | 19 |
| 5 | US20180118190A1 | Methods and systems for operating a driveline of a hybrid vehicle powertrain | 19 |
| 6 | US20150337952A1 | Shift control method for DCT vehicle | 19 |
| 7 | US20110257838A1 | Method and apparatus for dry clutch temperature prediction in a dct | 17 |
| 8 | US20180229712A1 | Systems and methods for meeting wheel torque demand in a hybrid vehicle | 16 |
| 9 | US20170122431A1 | Shift control method for vehicle with dual clutch transmission | 16 |
| 10 | CN106560362A | 混合动力电动车辆的双离合变速器的控制方法及控制系统 | 15 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations; treat them as a signal of influence on the field rather than of current commercial relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 numbers mean for a filing decision
Three read-outs from the ranking, the trend and the class composition that matter more than the raw counts.
One filer well ahead, then a fast taper
The leading assignee's 36 records outpace fifth place at 11 by a wide margin, and the count falls to 1 by tenth place. That shape says one organisation has built a deep position in shift-control logic while the rest of the ranked group holds thinner, more scattered coverage.
Activity has cooled from its high point
2017 is the peak year in the trend at 15 filings; the line has not returned to that level since, and the most recent year shows 0. Given the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, that final year should be read as incomplete rather than as a stop in activity.
Control claims sit in gearing, not just clutches
F16H (gearing) and B60W (vehicle control) each cover more than half of the 94 records, ahead of clutch-specific F16D at 38.3%. Drafting shift-control claims purely around clutch hardware misses where the bulk of prior art actually sits.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to dual clutch transmission shift control, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
The ranked leaders sit almost entirely among established vehicle and transmission OEMs and specialist transmission suppliers, with one strong co-filing pair standing out.
A single OEM dominates the ranking
The top assignee's 36 records more than triple the fifth-place count of 11, indicating a sustained, multi-year filing programme around DCT shift-control logic rather than a handful of opportunistic filings.
One affiliated pair files jointly at scale
The strongest co-assignee pairing in this set spans 27 shared records, far ahead of the next pair at 2, pointing to a coordinated group-level IP strategy between two closely related entities rather than independent filing.
Recent-year filings read as flat across the board
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum shows 0 filings in the latest year. That is consistent with publication lag rather than a genuine halt, but it means the visible ranking already understates whoever is filing right now.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Hyundai Motor Company | 0 | — |
| Kia Corporation | 0 | — |
| Eaton Corp | 0 | — |
| Ford Global Technologies, LLC | 0 | — |
| GM Global Technology Operations LLC | 0 | — |
| Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Hyundai Kefico Corp | 0 | — |
| ARAI KATSUHIRO | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to a few concrete next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, competitive tracking or white-space filing.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's portfolio
With one assignee holding 36 of the ranked records, any new torque-phase or slip-speed control filing should be checked against that portfolio first, not the ranking as a whole.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaWatch the smaller IPC classes for openings
G06F, B60L and B60T each cover under 10% of the 94 records, which is a thinner base to design around than F16H or B60W.
Run a white-space search in EurekaTrack publication lag before concluding activity has stopped
The 0-filing reading in the latest year is a lag artefact across every tracked assignee, not evidence the field has gone quiet; revisit the trend once later filings publish.
Set a filing alert in EurekaQuestions practitioners ask about this space
Among the 11 companies in the ranked assignee list, one leads with 36 records, well ahead of fifth place at 11 and tenth place at just 1. That gap indicates a sustained, deliberate filing programme by the top assignee rather than a crowded field of equally matched competitors. Anyone doing freedom-to-operate work in this area should start by reviewing that leader's portfolio in detail rather than treating the field as evenly distributed.
The filing trend peaked at 15 in 2017 and has not returned to that level since, with the most recent tracked year showing 0. However, publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so recent-year numbers understate real activity and should not be read as the field going cold. A clearer read on current momentum will only emerge once filings from the last one to two years finish publishing.
The bulk of records sit in F16H, gearing and transmissions, covering 62.8% of the 94 records in scope, and B60W, hybrid and joint vehicle control, at 52.1%. F16D, clutches and brakes, covers 38.3%, which is lower than many expect given that clutch hardware sits at the centre of DCT operation — most of the control-logic claiming actually happens at the vehicle-control and gearing level. Smaller classes like B60K, G06F, B60L and B60T each cover under 10% of records and represent comparatively open claim space.
US10046642B2, assigned to Hyundai Motor Company and published in 2018, claims a control method that detects a power-off down-shift state, checks whether the transmission has entered a torque phase, and calculates a compensatory torque to offset the change in regenerative braking force caused by the gear-ratio change during that phase. It is specific to hybrid electric vehicles using a dual clutch transmission, tying the torque-phase detection step to regenerative braking compensation. Anyone building torque-phase logic for a hybrid DCT powertrain needs to check their compensation strategy against this claim scope specifically, not just against general torque-phase patents.
The smaller IPC classes point to it directly: G06F (digital data processing) covers only 5.3% of the 94 records, and B60L (electric vehicle propulsion) and B60T (vehicle braking) sit at 2.1% and 1.1% respectively. That suggests software-defined handover coordination logic and EV-specific shift-jerk mitigation are comparatively under-claimed relative to the dense F16H and B60W space. A first claim in those areas would need to tie a specific digital control step or EV-driveline condition to the shift event rather than repeating the general torque-phase or inertia-phase language that dominates the crowded classes.
Research Dual Clutch Transmission Shift Control in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole dual clutch transmission shift 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.