Fracture Diagnostics Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- One leader dominates by volume, with the top assignee reaching 44 families against a fifth-place company at 21 and a tenth-place company at 11 — a steep drop rather than an even spread.
- Filing has cooled from its 2018 peak of 26, and the tracked growth figure of 2021 to 2024 shows a full -100% swing, though 2024 is the last year the dataset treats as complete.
- Geophysics classifications dominate the field, with G01V present on 80.7% of the 197 records in scope and E21B on 58.9%, leaving AI-assisted interpretation (G06N, 5.1%) and control systems (G05B, 1.5%) as comparatively thin classes.
Filing growth compares 2021 (7 records) with 2024 (0) — 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.
What this landscape covers
Fracture diagnostics and microseismic monitoring patents describe how operators locate and characterise hydraulic fractures during and after stimulation: microseismic event location, moment tensor inversion, downhole receiver arrays, fibre optic sensing, chemical tracer flowback and the software that turns that data into a stimulated reservoir volume. The search underlying this page pulls 197 published families from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, filtered on the diagnostic and monitoring terms rather than on stimulation chemistry or well construction generally.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so any apparent decline in the most recent one or two years understates real activity; 2024 is the last year in this dataset that can be treated as complete.
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
The figures below come directly from the 197 records in scope for this search; class shares are measured against that same record total and will sum to more than 100% because a single record can carry several IPC classes.
Filings rose to a peak in 2018 before falling back
Annual filings climbed from 12 in 2017 to a peak of 26 in 2018, then declined; the tracked span from 2021 (7) to 2024 (0) shows a -100% change, with 2024 the most recent complete year and 2025-2026 still filling in as publications catch up.
Geophysics and drilling classes dominate
G01V (geophysics and gravity surveying) appears on 80.7% of the 197 records and E21B (earth and rock drilling) on 58.9%, confirming that most filings sit at the intersection of subsurface sensing and well operations. Materials (C09K) and AI-based computing (G06N) each sit at 5.1%, with control and regulating systems (G05B) the thinnest tracked class at 1.5%.
Shares are the percentage of the 197 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Fracture Diagnostics and Microseismic with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about fracture diagnostics and microseismic and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this field
Stimulated rock volume analysis
A data acquisition program, which includes core, image log, microseismic, DAS, DTS, and pressure data, is described. This program can be used in conjunction with a variety of techniques to accurately monitor and conduct well stimulation.Filed by ConocoPhillips Company, published 2018-12-20 as US20180364381A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20060062084A1 | Microseismic event detection and location by continuous map migration | 158 |
| 2 | US20160108705A1 | Method of calibrating fracture geometry to microseismic events | 86 |
| 3 | US20180355707A1 | Method of integrating fracture, production, and reservoir operations into geomechanical operations of a wells… | 70 |
| 4 | US20130079935A1 | Method of Real Time Diagnostic of Fracture Operations with Combination of Tube Waves and Microseismic Monitor… | 67 |
| 5 | US7391675B2 | Microseismic event detection and location by continuous map migration | 67 |
| 6 | US20180203144A1 | Interferometric Microseismic Imaging Methods and Apparatus | 49 |
| 7 | US20140372089A1 | Method of calibrating fracture geometry to microseismic events | 46 |
| 8 | US20200370423A1 | Controller optimization via reinforcement learning on asset avatar | 42 |
| 9 | US20190120047A1 | Low frequency distributed acoustic sensing hydraulic fracture geometry | 40 |
| 10 | US20140334262A1 | Method and Apparatus for Active Seismic Shear Wave Monitoring of Hydro-Fracturing of Oil and Gas Reservoirs U… | 39 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and favour older filings; they are not a measure of current commercial 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 numbers mean for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the class composition are read together.
One filer holds a clear lead, then the field flattens
The leading assignee's family count is more than double the fifth-place company's, and the gap to tenth place is wider still. That pattern points to a dominant early filer defending a broad position, with mid-tier players holding narrower, more defensible claim sets rather than competing head-on for the same ground.
Filing has not returned to its 2018 high
Annual filings rose from 12 in 2017 to a peak of 26 in 2018, then eased off in the years that followed. The tracked 2021-to-2024 span shows a full -100% swing, but because publication lags filing by around 18 months, the last two years in the chart understate whatever filing is actually happening now.
Sensing and location claims crowd the space; interpretation software does not
Geophysics classifications (G01V) sit on more than four in five of the 197 records, while AI-based computing (G06N) and general digital data processing (G06F) together cover a much smaller slice. That gap suggests the physical sensing and event-location layer is heavily claimed while the analytics layer built on top of it is comparatively open.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to fracture diagnostics and microseismic, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the activity has gone quiet
The ranked leaders in this dataset cluster around a small number of related corporate families, and the most recent-year momentum figures show all of the top-tracked assignees at zero filings in the latest year — consistent with the broader publication lag rather than a sign the technology has stalled.
A single filer sets the pace by volume
The top-ranked assignee's 44 families put it well ahead of the rest of the ranked list, and co-assignee pairings in the data show related entities filing jointly rather than as fully separate applicants — a common pattern when a group restructures its patent-holding entities over time.
A long tail sits below the leader
Fifth place holds 21 families and tenth place 11, a steady taper rather than a cliff. That shape usually means the core sensing and location methods are already claimed by the leader, while later entrants have found narrower, still-defensible niches around calibration, integration or specific sensing modalities.
Recent-year filings from the leading assignees read as zero
Every one of the top-tracked assignees shows zero filings in the latest year in this dataset. Given the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication, this is best read as an artefact of the data cut-off rather than evidence that these companies have stopped filing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| ConocoPhillips Company | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology Corp | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Canada Limited | 0 | — |
| Services Petroliers Schlumberger SA | 0 | — |
| Geoquest Systems BV | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology BV | 0 | — |
| WesternGeco Seismic Holdings Ltd | 0 | — |
| MicroSeismic Inc | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
This landscape identifies where the claim space is dense and where it is thin; turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate position takes a closer read of the specific claims involved.
Check freedom-to-operate against the most-cited records
The highest-cited patents in this set, including the two continuous-map-migration filings, sit in the core event-location methods that most downstream work depends on.
Explore in Eureka →Map the under-claimed sub-areas to a first draft claim
Fibre optic diagnostics, tracer flowback analytics and AI-assisted classification carry a small share of the 197 records tracked here, which is where a narrower claim is more likely to clear prior art.
Explore in Eureka →Common questions on fracture diagnostics patents
One assignee leads the ranked list with 44 families, well ahead of the fifth-placed company at 21 and the tenth at 11. Several of the other entries in the ranking trace back to related corporate entities that filed under different legal names over time, which is typical after mergers or internal restructuring. The gap between the leader and the rest suggests the core sensing and location methods were staked out early, leaving later entrants to compete on narrower calibration or integration claims.
Filings peaked at 26 in 2018 after rising from 12 in 2017, and the tracked span from 2021 (7) to 2024 (0) shows a full -100% drop. However, 2024 is the most recent year in this dataset that can be treated as complete, because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. Read the 2025-2026 figures as still filling in rather than as evidence the field has gone quiet.
Geophysics and gravity surveying (G01V) appears on 80.7% of the 197 records in scope, and earth and rock drilling (E21B) on 58.9%, meaning most filings combine subsurface sensing with well operations. Smaller but active classes include materials for miscellaneous applications and AI-based computing, each on 5.1% of records. Control and regulating systems (G05B) is the thinnest tracked class at 1.5%, which may indicate room for claims tied to automated stimulation control.
The analytics and control layers built on top of raw microseismic sensing look comparatively open: AI-based computing (G06N) and general digital data processing (G06F) together cover a much smaller share of the 197 records than the geophysics and drilling classes that dominate the field. Fibre optic diagnostics integration, chemical tracer flowback analytics and moment tensor inversion software are specific sub-areas worth checking against the most-cited prior art before drafting. These branches sit adjacent to heavily claimed core methods, so a narrowly drawn claim is more likely to clear existing filings than a broad one.
US20180364381A1, assigned to ConocoPhillips and published in December 2018, describes a data acquisition program combining core, image log, microseismic, DAS, DTS and pressure data to monitor and conduct well stimulation. It is a representative filing in this space rather than the single most-cited one, but its breadth across multiple data types means anyone building an integrated stimulated-rock-volume workflow should check its specific claim language directly. Whether it blocks a given project depends on the exact combination of sensing inputs and processing steps claimed, not just the general concept of combining microseismic and pressure data.
Research Fracture Diagnostics and Microseismic in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole fracture diagnostics and microseismic 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.