Elevator Safety Devices Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- 78.9% sits with five filers. Of the 38 records in scope, the top five assignees combined account for 30 filings — 78.9% of the field — leaving a thin tail beyond them.
- One subclass dominates the claim space. B66B (lifts & escalators) covers 94.7% of all 38 records, meaning almost every filing sits inside a single, densely occupied classification.
- 2017 was the peak year so far. Filings reached 4 in 2017 and have not exceeded that since; the most recent years are undercounted because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 38 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent activity around overspeed governors, progressive safety gear, deceleration limits, uncontrolled-movement protection, brake lining wear and electronic safety chains — the mechanisms that stop or slow a lift car when normal operation fails. The scope is narrow by design: it captures documents whose title or abstract explicitly names elevator safety gear or elevator brake systems, filtered further by claim-level terms like overspeed governor and progressive safety gear.
The dataset spans filings published between 2015 and mid-2026, with 38 records in scope. It is small enough that a handful of assignees define the shape of the field, and specific enough that the IPC composition is dominated by a single subclass rather than spread across a broad technology stack.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and classification spread
Two views of the same 38 records: how filings moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings peaked at 4 in 2017 and have since run at or below that level, falling to 0 in the most recent, still-partial year. With fewer than four complete years available once publication lag is accounted for, a growth rate cannot be reliably stated from this trend alone.
IPC subclass composition
B66B (lifts & escalators) accounts for 94.7% of the 38 records in scope — effectively the entire field. The remaining subclasses (vehicle interiors, marine vessels, clutches & brakes, springs & dampers) each appear in a single record, at 2.6% apiece, suggesting occasional cross-filing from adjacent mechanical disciplines rather than a distinct secondary cluster.
Shares are the percentage of the 38 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Elevator Safety Devices and Braking with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about elevator safety devices and braking and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a recent filing
EP4652130B1 — overspeed governor device, elevator safety gear and monitoring method
Filed by Kone and published 2026-06-10, this record addresses an overspeed governor device paired with elevator safety gear and a method for monitoring the governor's operation during use — combining the sensing and mechanical-actuation sides of overspeed protection into one filing.Abstract paraphrased from the original filing language.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20180251339A1 | High speed bearing assembly for elevator safety gear and methods of making and using same | 12 |
| 2 | CN201236086Y | 可以设置多种启动方式的电梯安全杠装置 | 9 |
| 3 | US20070240941A1 | Brake shoe for use in elevator safety gear | 9 |
| 4 | WO2005021413A1 | Elevator safety gear arrangement | 7 |
| 5 | CN207759883U | 多重保护式电梯 | 4 |
| 6 | CN207390723U | 新型无机房双向限速器 | 4 |
| 7 | CN207390724U | 新型限速器棘轮组件 | 3 |
| 8 | WO2015056255A1 | Mechanical activation of separate safety gears for the upward and downward direction | 3 |
| 9 | EP1663837B1 | Elevator safety gear arrangement | 3 |
| 10 | US20210371240A1 | Emergency terminal stopping systems | 2 |
Citation counts reward older documents simply because they have had longer to accumulate references; treat this table as a signal of influence within the corpus, not of current technical importance.
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 patterns stand out once the concentration, classification and citation figures are read together.
Claim space is occupied by a short list of incumbents
With 30 of 38 records held by five assignees, a new entrant is filing directly against established players' prior art rather than into open space. The top 10 combined figure (94.7%) shows the tail beyond that group is thin — mostly single-filing entrants.
Almost everything sits in one IPC subclass
Lifts & escalators (B66B) covers nearly all 38 records, with only single-record appearances in vehicle interiors, marine, clutches/brakes and springs/dampers. That leaves little evidence of a distinct secondary technology cluster forming around safety gear.
The most-cited work is mechanical, not electronic
The top-cited records concern bearing assemblies and brake shoes for safety gear rather than the electronic safety chain terms named in the search scope, suggesting the influential prior art in this corpus is still mechanical actuation rather than sensing or control logic.
Recent-year momentum reads flat across the board
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including the leader, shows 0 filings in the latest year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this understates true recent activity rather than signalling that filing has actually stopped.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to elevator safety devices and braking, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
The assignee ranking returned by the dataset covers 14 companies, counted in records — not a top-50 or top-100 list, just the full set the data endpoint returns for this scope.
One company holds well over a third of the field
The leading assignee's 16 records already exceed the combined count of the remaining nine ranked companies, making this one of the more concentrated corners of the elevators and escalators category.
The drop-off after the leader is steep
Fifth place holds just 2 records, and the top five together still only reach 30 — meaning the gap between the leader and everyone else is doing most of the concentration work in this field.
Most ranked companies filed once or twice
Below the top few positions, single-record filers dominate the ranking, including specialised inspection bodies and individual inventors rather than only elevator OEMs.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Kone Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Inventio AG | 0 | — |
| Foshan Ouhui Elevator Parts Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| ThyssenKrupp AG | 0 | — |
| ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG | 0 | — |
| Otis Elevator Company | 0 | — |
| Yoram Madar | 0 | — |
| YORAM MADAR | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to a concentrated, mechanically-oriented field with a thin secondary layer worth checking before committing to a filing strategy.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's claims
With one assignee holding 16 of 38 records, any new overspeed governor or progressive safety gear filing should be checked against that portfolio specifically, not just the field average.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaLook past B66B for adjacent filing routes
The single-record appearances in vehicle interiors, marine and springs/dampers hint that brake and safety-gear mechanisms developed elsewhere could be adapted into elevator claims with less prior art in the way.
Map adjacent IPC classes in EurekaCommon questions on elevator safety gear patents
Within this dataset of 38 records, one assignee leads with 16 records, well ahead of the rest of the ranked field. The top five assignees combined hold 30 records, or 78.9% of everything in scope, and the top ten reach 94.7%. That leaves only a handful of records spread across single-filing entrants, including inspection bodies and individual inventors rather than only elevator manufacturers.
Almost all of them, 94.7% of the 38 records, are classified under B66B, the lifts and escalators subclass. A small number of records also touch vehicle interiors, marine vessels, clutches and brakes, or springs and dampers, each at a single record. This tells you the field is not spreading into a distinct secondary cluster; brake and safety-gear innovation here is filed almost entirely as elevator-specific technology rather than adapted from other mechanical domains.
The filing trend peaks at 4 in 2017 and has not exceeded that level since, falling to 0 in the most recent, still-partial year. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent years understate real activity and a reliable growth rate cannot be computed from fewer than four complete years of data. Treat the apparent flattening as inconclusive rather than as evidence the field has stalled.
EP4652130B1, published 2026-06-10 by Kone, covers an overspeed governor device combined with elevator safety gear and a method for monitoring the governor's operation. It is a recent filing that ties the sensing and mechanical-actuation sides of overspeed protection together in one claim set. Anyone designing a new overspeed governor or a monitoring method for one should review this filing's specific claim language before finalising a design, rather than assuming an open field simply because the subclass is broad.
The clearest under-claimed areas sit just outside the dominant B66B mechanical core: electronic safety chain monitoring logic, brake lining wear sensing, and cross-industry brake actuation ideas borrowed from marine or vehicle-seat interlock designs each appear only once or not at all in the classification data. The most-cited prior art in this corpus is mechanical (bearing assemblies, brake shoes) rather than electronic, which suggests sensing and control-logic claims around safety gear are comparatively less contested.
Research Elevator Safety Devices and Braking in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole elevator safety devices and braking 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.