Hydraulic Fracture Design Patents: Who Leads, Trends 2026
- 306 of 406 records sit inside E21B (earth & rock drilling), with G01V geophysics claims layered on top of 41.1% of the set — this is a drilling-domain field with a heavy geophysics overlay, not a pure software play.
- Filing has cooled from its 2019 peak of 20 to a -29% change between 2021 (7) and 2024 (5), the last year the data can treat as complete.
- One family holds 88 filings against a fifth-place count of 59 and a tenth-place count of 13 — a steep drop-off rather than a gentle tail.
Filing growth compares 2021 (7 records) with 2024 (5) — 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
This landscape tracks patent activity where hydraulic fracture design and
Records were pulled by matching design and modelling terminology against the operational parameters that define a real fracturing treatment, so the set skews toward filings that connect simulation or geometry claims to field-measurable quantities rather than pure reservoir theory.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 406-record set: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing activity by year
Filings rose to a peak of 20 in 2019, then eased; the 2021-to-2024 span shows a -29% change (7 to 5), the last comparison the dataset supports without leaning on incomplete recent years.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
E21B (earth & rock drilling) covers 75.6% of the 406 records, with G01V (geophysics) at 41.1% and G06F (digital data processing) at 22.9% — since records can carry multiple classes, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 406 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Hydraulic Fracture Design and Modelling with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about hydraulic fracture design and modelling and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
US10520625B2 — Assessing a fracture propagation model based on seismic data
Some aspects of what is described here relate to seismic data analysis techniques. A seismic excitation is generated in a first directional wellbore section in a subterranean region. A seismic response associated with the seismic excitation is detected in a second directional wellbore section in the subterranean region. A fracture treatment target region in the subterranean region is analyzed based on the seismic response. A fracture propagation model is assessed based on the analysis of the fracture treatment target region. In some cases, the fracture propagation model is assessed in real time during a fracture treatment.Filed by Halliburton Energy Services; ties a fracture propagation model directly to seismic monitoring across two wellbore sections, including real-time assessment during treatment.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20110257944A1 | Modeling hydraulic fracturing induced fracture networks as a dual porosity system | 260 |
| 2 | US20120179444A1 | System and method for performing downhole stimulation operations | 254 |
| 3 | US7082993B2 | Means and method for assessing the geometry of a subterranean fracture during or after a hydraulic fracturing… | 222 |
| 4 | US20080183451A1 | Simulations for Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments and Methods of Fracturing Naturally Fractured Formation | 196 |
| 5 | US20170114613A1 | Well re-stimulation | 178 |
| 6 | US20030205376A1 | Means and Method for Assessing the Geometry of a Subterranean Fracture During or After a Hydraulic Fracturing… | 173 |
| 7 | US20130140031A1 | System and method for performing optimized downhole stimulation operations | 147 |
| 8 | US20170205531A1 | Geological modeling workflow | 86 |
| 9 | US20160108705A1 | Method of calibrating fracture geometry to microseismic events | 86 |
| 10 | US20180016895A1 | Method of performing wellsite fracture operations with statistical uncertainties | 81 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate them — read this as a signal of influence within the corpus, not of current commercial weight.
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
Four takeaways from the filing trend, the class mix and the citation table, read together rather than in isolation.
One filer sits well ahead, then the field steps down fast
The leading assignee holds 88 filings against 59 at fifth place and just 13 at tenth. That is a much steeper drop than a gradual long tail — the middle of the ranked list is thin, which is worth checking before assuming any mid-ranked player has broad coverage.
Drilling mechanics dominates, geophysics rides alongside
Three in four records carry an E21B drilling classification, and four in ten also carry a G01V geophysics classification. Software-only classes like G06G (9.6%) and control systems like G05B (1.5%) are present but comparatively small, suggesting the claim space here is still anchored to physical wellbore operations rather than abstract simulation.
Volume has eased from its 2019 peak
Filings peaked at 20 in 2019 and the 2021-to-2024 window shows a -29% change, from 7 down to 5. 2024 is the most recent year the dataset can treat as complete; years after that are still filling in as publications catch up to filing dates.
US and Canada anchor the filing footprint
The United States leads receiving-office counts at 137, with Canada at 62 and the WIPO PCT route at 55. Australia, Europe and the UK each sit lower, pointing to North American operations as the primary commercial target for most filers in this set.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to hydraulic fracture design and modelling, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranking below covers 73 companies, all counted in records — this is the full list the dataset returns, not a top-50 or top-100 cut.
A single group holds the largest cluster of filings
The top-ranked assignee's filings, together with its related corporate entities appearing separately in the ranking, form the strongest co-assignee pairs in the dataset — a sign of internal cross-filing across group entities rather than joint work with outside partners.
The leading names show no filings in the most recent tracked year
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including the leader and other major service companies, shows zero filings in the latest year. Given the 18-month publication lag, this is consistent with a filing slowdown that is still working its way through the pipeline rather than a confirmed stop.
Filings cluster inside corporate families more than across them
The strongest co-assignee pairings link entities that share a parent group rather than separate competitors, which matters for freedom-to-operate work: checking one entity in a family without checking its sibling filings will miss related claims.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Schlumberger Technology LLC | 0 | — |
| Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology Corp | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Corp | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Canada Limited | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Holdings Limited | 0 | — |
| Prad Research and Development Ltd | 0 | — |
| Geoquest Systems BV | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The trend and class data point to a mature but still active claim space around drilling-linked fracture modelling. Two directions follow naturally.
Map claims against the under-claimed sub-areas
Compare pending applications against the gate chips above — fluid loss sensing and multi-well stress shadow modelling both carry lighter filing density than the core E21B/G01V overlap.
Explore in Patsnap Eureka →Check corporate-family exposure before filing
Given how tightly the strongest co-assignee pairs cluster within single corporate groups, freedom-to-operate work should trace related entities, not just the parent name.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in Patsnap Eureka →Common questions about this landscape
One assignee leads the ranked list with 88 filings, well ahead of the fifth-ranked company at 59 and the tenth at 13. The ranking covers 73 companies in total, drawn from patent families, and several of the top entries are related corporate entities of the same group rather than independent competitors. Because the strongest co-assignee pairs link sibling entities within one family, checking a single entity name can understate that group's real coverage.
Filing peaked at 20 records in 2019 and has since eased, with a documented -29% change between 2021 (7 filings) and 2024 (5 filings) — the last span the dataset can treat as complete. Years after 2024 show lower counts, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than a confirmed drop-off. Treat any apparent decline in 2025 or 2026 figures as an artefact of incomplete data, not a settled trend.
The dominant classification is E21B, earth and rock drilling for wells, covering 75.6% of the 406 records in scope. G01V, geophysics and gravity surveying, appears on 41.1% of records, and G06F, digital data processing, on 22.9% — reflecting the field's mix of physical drilling operations and computational modelling. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be summed into a single total.
US10520625B2, assigned to Halliburton Energy Services, claims a method of assessing a fracture propagation model using seismic data generated and detected across two directional wellbore sections, with the option to assess the model in real time during a fracture treatment. It matters because it ties fracture geometry modelling directly to an active seismic monitoring method rather than treating the model as a standalone computation. Anyone building real-time fracture assessment tools that rely on cross-wellbore seismic response should review its claim scope closely.
The smaller IPC classes in this dataset point to lighter claim density in vibration-based measurement (G01H, 3.0% of records), materials-focused approaches (C09K, 2.7%), and control-and-regulation systems (G05B, 1.5%), compared with the heavily claimed E21B and G01V space. Sub-areas such as fluid loss coefficient sensing, real-time tip screenout detection, and multi-well stress shadow modelling show comparatively few dedicated filings. These are reasonable starting points for a novelty search, though absence of filings in a search corpus is not proof of absence of prior art elsewhere.
Research Hydraulic Fracture Design and Modelling in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole hydraulic fracture design and modelling 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.