https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/extended-reach-and-horizontal-wells-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Drilling Technology
Extended Reach and Horizontal Well Patents: Who Holds the Ground
  • 49.7% concentration. The top 5 assignees combined account for 296 of the 596 records in scope — near half the field sits with a handful of filers.
  • Hole cleaning dominates E21B. 486 records (81.5%) carry an E21B drilling classification, with C09K materials claims trailing at 21.1% — a gap between mechanical and chemical filing volume worth watching.
  • Growth without a slowdown signal. Filings ran from 10 in 2021 to 13 in 2024, a 30% rise over that span, even as peak-year 2020 (13) shows the field has not settled into decline.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
596
Published Records
50%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+30%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (10 records) with 2024 (13) — 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. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 596 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··8 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview

What the extended reach and horizontal well filing record shows

Extended reach and horizontal well drilling filings sit at the intersection of mechanical hole-cleaning hardware and the fluids that carry cuttings out of long, low-angle boreholes. The search set combines extended reach drilling and horizontal well drilling terms with the operational problems that make those wells hard to complete: cuttings beds, wellbore stability, casing running friction, axial drag and pipe rotation speed. That pairing captures both the drilling-string engineering side and the drilling-fluid chemistry side of the same set of problems.

596 published records span 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with receiving-office activity concentrated in the United States, followed by Canada, WIPO PCT filings, Europe, Australia and the United Kingdom. The IPC composition confirms the field's centre of gravity: E21B earth and rock drilling classifications appear on the large majority of records, with materials science (C09K), geophysics (G01V) and digital control or data processing classes appearing on a meaningful but much smaller share.

Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
  1. 1HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES INC122
  2. 2M I LLC(US)51
  3. 3LANDMARK GRAPHICS CORP51
  4. 4WESTERN WELL TOOL46
  5. 5TERCEL IP26
  6. 6SAUDI ARABIAN OIL CO20
  7. 7MECIRIA LTD19
  8. 8SINVENT AS17
  9. 9STRATALOC TECH PROD15
  10. 10UNION OIL CO OF CALIFORNIA15
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
Filing Trends

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 596-record dataset: activity by year, and the IPC subclasses that carry the claims. Because a single record can carry more than one classification, the class shares below sum to more than 100% of records.

Filing activity, 2017-2026

Filings rose from 5 in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2020, and after a dip climbed again to 13 in 2024 — a 30% increase over the 2021-2024 span. 2025 and 2026 figures are not yet comparable: publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent two years understate actual filing activity rather than showing a real decline.

Filing activity, 2017-202604811155201720182019132020202120222023132024202502026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

E21B (earth and rock drilling) covers 81.5% of the 596 records, confirming this is primarily a mechanical and operational drilling field. C09K (materials for miscellaneous applications, largely drilling fluids) sits at 21.1%, with G01V geophysics, G06F data processing and G05B control systems each appearing on single-digit shares — signals of instrumentation and digital-monitoring activity layered onto a mechanically dominated base.

Technology composition by IPC subclassE21B · Earth & rock drilling (wells)48681.5%C09K · Materials for misc. applicatio…12621.1%G01V · Geophysics & gravity surveying264.4%G06F · Electric digital data processi…203.4%G05B · Control & regulating systems122.0%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…81.3%G01N · Material analysis & testing71.2%F16L · Pipes & pipe fittings40.7%Other152.5%

Shares are the percentage of the 596 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about extended reach and horizontal wells and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Prior Art & Representative Filings

Key patents shaping the field

Representative Filing
US20200217780A12020-07-09

Experimental device and method for testing lubricity in horizontal well drilling with a cuttings bed (US20200217780A1)

SOUTHWEST PETROLEUM UNIVERSITY

The filing discloses a lab apparatus for measuring drilling-string lubricity in horizontal wells where cuttings have settled into a bed along the low side of the wellbore. A simulated wellbore section holds a drill rod fitted with thrust and torque sensors, driven by a rotating mechanism, with a cuttings-feed port and slurry circulation system that reproduces cuttings-bed conditions during testing.Filed by Southwest Petroleum University, published 2020-07-09.

US20200217780A1 — patent drawing 1
View full record
Most-cited records in the dataset
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US5181571AWell casing flotation device and method438
2US5482116AWellbore guided hydraulic fracturing230
3US7172038B2Well system228
4US4384625AReduction of the frictional coefficient in a borehole by the use of vibration223
5US5117915AWell casing flotation device and method186
6US6923273B2Well system176
7US4986361AWell casing flotation device and method149
8US20030075361A1Well system134
9US20080000693A1Steerable rotary directional drilling tool for drilling boreholes133
10US20060124360A1Methods and apparatus for drilling, completing and configuring U-tube boreholes131

Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records that have had more time to accumulate citing references — read them as a signal of influence on later filings, not as a marker of current commercial relevance.

Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
Fastest

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 →
For builders

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 →
Dataset Insights

What the numbers say about the field's structure

Reading concentration, classification spread and citation depth together gives a clearer picture than any single chart.

Concentration
49.7%
of 596 records

Half the field sits with five filers

The top 5 assignees combined hold 296 of the 596 records in scope — 49.7% of the field. The leader alone accounts for 122 records, well ahead of fifth place at 26, which points to a small group of oilfield service majors setting the claim boundaries that everyone else drills around.

Based on the assignee ranking of 100 companies.
Long tail
64.1%
top 10 of 596 records

The top 10 extends concentration only modestly

Moving from 5 to 10 ranked assignees adds only 14.4 percentage points, taking combined share to 64.1% of all 596 records. That gap between the top 5 and top 10 curves is shallow, which signals that beyond the leading names, filing activity thins out quickly into single- and double-digit contributors.

Tenth place holds 15 records.
Classification split
81.5% vs 21.1%
E21B vs C09K share

Mechanical claims outnumber materials claims four to one

E21B drilling-mechanics classifications appear on 81.5% of records against 21.1% for C09K materials claims. That gap suggests fluid and additive chemistry for cuttings transport is comparatively less contested than the mechanical hardware and drill-string engineering side of the same problem set.

Shares are of the 596-record total; a record may carry both classes.
Citation depth
438 citations
top-cited record

The most-cited prior art predates the current filing wave

The most-cited record in the dataset, on well casing flotation, carries 438 citations — far ahead of the rest of the most-cited group. High citation counts here mark foundational mechanical concepts that later filings built on, not necessarily technology still being actively claimed today.

Citation counts favour older records within the searched corpus.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to extended reach and horizontal wells, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Assignee Landscape

Who is filing, and where the activity has gone quiet

The ranked assignee list runs to 100 companies drawn from the 596 records in scope. It is a full ranking, not a curated top tier, and recent-year momentum inside it tells a different story from the cumulative totals.

Leader
122
records

One assignee holds well over a hundred records

The leading assignee's 122 records sit far ahead of fifth place at 26, a gap that marks a genuine leader rather than a crowded top tier. That single-assignee weight is a large share of the 49.7% held by the top 5 combined.

Counted in patent families across the full ranking.
Momentum
0
in the latest year

Several leading names show no recent-year activity

A number of the assignees with the largest cumulative totals, including the field's leader, show zero records in the latest year of the dataset. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this is as likely to reflect filings still working through the pipeline as an actual pullback, but it is worth checking each name's own trend before assuming continued investment.

Recent-year counts reflect publication timing, not necessarily filing intent.
Co-filing
10 pairs
co-assignee pairs

Co-assignment is limited and inventor-anchored

The dataset surfaces only 10 co-assignee pairs, with the strongest pairs built around named individual inventors filing alongside a corporate assignee rather than joint ventures between companies. That pattern suggests most IP in this field is filed by a single corporate owner rather than through formal collaboration.

Strongest pairs recur at a frequency of 4 shared records.
🔍
Under-claimed branches worth checking before filing
Sub-areas where the classification data shows thin coverage relative to the core drilling-mechanics claims.
Real-time cuttings-bed detection sensingAutomated pipe rotation speed control loopsWellbore stability predictive modelling softwareCasing running friction reduction coatingsDigital twin axial drag simulation
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.0
WESTERN WELL TOOL0
Landmark Graphics Corporation0
M-I LLC0
Tercel IP0
Saudi Arabian Oil Co. (Saudi Aramco)0
Sinvent AS0
Meciria Ltd.0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Where to take this analysis next

The dataset points to specific follow-up questions rather than a single conclusion — each one narrows the field differently.

Check freedom-to-operate against the top 5

With 49.7% of records held by five assignees, any new filing in core hole-cleaning or drag-force mechanics should be checked against those portfolios first, not the long tail.

Explore assignee portfolios in Eureka

Test the materials-claims gap

C09K materials filings sit at less than a third of the E21B mechanical share. That gap may reflect real white space in cuttings-transport fluid chemistry, or simply different classification habits worth verifying claim by claim.

Run a claims comparison in Eureka

Track the recent-year momentum shift

Several cumulative leaders show no publications in the latest year. Confirming whether that is a pipeline lag or a genuine pause changes how a competitive-watch list should be prioritised.

Set up assignee monitoring in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about extended reach well patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole extended reach and horizontal wells corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.