Fishing and Milling Operations Patents: Who Leads, Gaps 2026
- Five filers hold 60.8% of the field. The top 5 assignees account for 62 of the 102 records in scope — a tight core rather than a fragmented one.
- The next five close it out almost entirely. The top 10 combined reach 98.0% of all 102 records, leaving almost no long tail beyond the ranked leaders.
- Filing has cooled from a 2018 peak. Volume ran at 7 records in 2018 and has trended down since; the most recent year is partial and will under-report true activity.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 102 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 102 published records matched on downhole fishing tools, downhole milling, overshot fishing tools, junk baskets, junk mills, tubing cutters, free point indicators, washover pipe and sidetrack window milling. The scope spans 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, capturing the core hardware and method claims used to recover or clear obstructions in a wellbore and to mill new access windows in casing or liner.
Filing is heavily weighted toward oilfield services incumbents, with receiving-office activity concentrated in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and the PCT route. The technology composition sits almost entirely inside earth and rock drilling classifications, with smaller but consistent overlap into pipe fittings, geophysical surveying and control systems — evidence that fishing and milling tools are increasingly instrumented rather than purely mechanical.
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 102-record set: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims fall into.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Recorded filings ran at 6 in 2017 and peaked at 7 in 2018 before easing off; 2026 shows 0 because the year is only partially reported and publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the last one to two years will always look lighter than they eventually turn out to be.
IPC subclass composition
E21B (earth and rock drilling for wells) covers 93.1% of the 102 records, confirming this is fundamentally a wellbore-hardware field. Secondary overlap into F16L (pipe fittings, 12.7%), G01V (geophysical surveying, 7.8%), B06B (mechanical vibration, 4.9%) and control/data-processing classes G05B, G06G and G06F (each under 4%) points to a growing instrumentation layer around free-point detection and downhole diagnostics, sitting alongside a small, narrowly claimed B23C milling-machinery slice at 2.0%.
Shares are the percentage of the 102 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Fishing and Milling Operations with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about fishing and milling operations and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited records
US10711551B2 — Milling downhole tubulars
A central shaft defines a first interior flow path and sits at least partially within a washover pipe. A lead tapered mill positioned at the shaft's downhole end centres the milling tool within a tubular and carries a second flow path in line with the first. Milling blades span between the shaft and the washover pipe, arranged to permit fluid flow around them; each blade combines a tungsten-carbide hardened face with a soft steel body sized to carry milling loads. A junk basket completes the assembly.Filed by Saudi Arabian Oil Company, published 2020-07-14.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6276452B1 | Apparatus for removal of milling debris | 252 |
| 2 | US20040045714A1 | Downhole milling machine and method of use | 47 |
| 3 | US20160138369A1 | Apparatus And Method For Cultivating A Downhole Surface | 35 |
| 4 | US7188674B2 | Downhole milling machine and method of use | 34 |
| 5 | WO1988002056A1 | High bending strength ratio drill string components | 34 |
| 6 | US20150247396A1 | Automated rate of penetration optimization while milling | 32 |
| 7 | US20070181305A1 | Downhole milling machine and method of use | 30 |
| 8 | US4760889A | High bending strength ratio drill string components | 25 |
| 9 | US20200032604A1 | Milling downhole tubulars | 22 |
| 10 | US20150184508A1 | Computing systems, tools, and methods for simulating wellbore re-entry | 20 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — read them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not of which tool is currently best.
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 findings that change where a new application should be aimed, drawn directly from the assignee, trend and citation data above.
Claim space is occupied at the core
With 62 of 102 records held by five assignees, core mechanical claims on overshot tools, junk mills and tubing cutters sit on dense prior art from established oilfield services filers. New entrants filing head-on in this core are filing into a crowded space, not an open one.
Almost nothing sits outside the ranked leaders
The top 10 assignees reach 98.0% of all records, meaning the remaining nine ranked filers and any unranked entrants together account for barely 2% of the field. This is not a landscape with a long tail of small independent filers to watch.
Debris-removal apparatus still anchors the field
The most-cited record, on removal of milling debris, carries 252 citations — far ahead of the next tier. That weight reflects age and searched-corpus effects as much as current relevance, but it marks the foundational claim territory that later filings had to work around.
Volume has cooled since 2018
Filing ran at 6 in 2017 and peaked at 7 in 2018, with volume easing in subsequent years. Growth rate is not computable from the complete-year window here, but the direction is a cooling one rather than an accelerating one — worth weighing before assuming this is a growth area.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to fishing and milling operations, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground and where it opens up
Nineteen companies make up the entire ranked field, with activity clustering around a small set of related Schlumberger entities and a handful of independent oilfield services and operator filers.
A single filer sets the pace
The leading assignee holds 15 records, well ahead of fifth place at 11 and tenth place at 7. Co-assignee pairings among related Schlumberger entities (12, 8 and 8 shared records) suggest much of this volume reflects one filing programme managed across several corporate names rather than independent competitors.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet across the board
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including the leader and its related entities, shows 0 filings in the latest year. Combined with the partial-year reporting lag, this reads as a pause in visible activity rather than a confirmed retreat from the space.
Filing is anchored in US, UK and European routes
The United States leads receiving-office volume at 39, with the United Kingdom at 18 and Europe (EPO) and the PCT route each at 12. Australia and Austria carry smaller counts, indicating protection strategy centres on the US and European/UK markets with PCT used for optionality rather than broad simultaneous national filing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Smith International Inc | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology LLC | 0 | — |
| TUNGET BRUCE A | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Limited | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Holdings Limited | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology Corporation | 0 | — |
| Saudi Arabian Oil Company | 0 | — |
| DarkVision Technologies Inc | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The dataset points to a concentrated core and a quiet recent period rather than an open field — the practical next step is narrowing to the specific sub-claims still thin on prior art.
Map the instrumentation overlap
G01V, G05B, G06G and G06F classes appear alongside core E21B claims in a minority of records, suggesting sensor and control integration is still being defined rather than locked down. Pull those records specifically before drafting a claim in this area.
Explore in EurekaCheck co-assignee structure before assuming competition
Several of the top-ranked names share a common corporate lineage. Before treating the ranking as a competitive map, resolve which entries are related filings under one applicant group and which are genuinely independent filers.
Run an assignee resolution in EurekaCommon questions on fishing and milling patents
The field is concentrated: the leading assignee holds 15 of the 102 records in scope, and the top 5 assignees combined account for 60.8% of all records. Several of the highest-ranked names are related Schlumberger entities with strong co-assignee overlap, which means the visible concentration partly reflects one filing programme spread across corporate names rather than several unrelated competitors. Anyone assessing freedom to operate should resolve corporate relationships before treating the ranking as a simple competitive map.
Filing peaked at 7 records in 2018 and has eased since, with the most recent year showing 0 recorded filings. That figure is understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the last one to two years in any trend will always look lighter than the eventual total. A firm growth rate is not computable here because there are fewer than four complete years once that lag is accounted for, but the visible direction since the 2018 peak is a cooling one.
US10711551B2, assigned to Saudi Arabian Oil Company and published 2020-07-14, covers a milling downhole tubulars assembly built around a central shaft with an internal flow path positioned inside a washover pipe. A lead tapered mill centres the tool and continues that flow path, milling blades with tungsten-carbide hardened faces and soft steel bodies carry the milling load while allowing fluid flow, and a junk basket completes the assembly. It is a useful reference point for washover-pipe and milling-blade claim structure even for filers outside the operator segment.
E21B, the earth and rock drilling classification for wells, covers 93.1% of the 102 records in scope and is the anchor class for this field. Secondary classes appear far less often but consistently: F16L (pipe fittings) at 12.7%, G01V (geophysical surveying) at 7.8%, and smaller overlaps into vibration generation and control/data-processing classes. Because a single record can carry several classes, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should not be summed or treated as mutually exclusive segments.
The IPC composition shows thin, secondary-only coverage in instrumentation-adjacent classes like free-point detection, vibration-based debris sensing, and milling control logic, compared to dense coverage of core mechanical apparatus. That pattern suggests the mechanical hardware — overshot tools, junk mills, tubing cutters — is heavily claimed, while the sensor and control layer wrapped around that hardware is not. A first claim in that space would likely combine a specific sensing or control method with the mechanical tool rather than claiming the mechanical tool alone.
Research Fishing and Milling Operations in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole fishing and milling operations 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.