Intelligent Completion Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- 78.8% of all filings sit with just five assignees, and 88.2% with ten — this is a field with a narrow gate, not a fragmented one.
- E21B carries 94.5% of the 1,852 records; every other IPC subclass, including valve and materials classes, sits under 6%.
- Filings cooled -15% from 2021 to 2024 after a 2020 peak of 241 — a pullback from a spike, not a field losing relevance.
Filing growth compares 2021 (72 records) with 2024 (61) — 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 1,852 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Intelligent completion and flow control spans the hardware and control logic that let an operator manage inflow zone by zone downhole: interval control valves, autonomous inflow control devices, hydraulic control lines, zonal flow control and downhole water shutoff. The search underlying this page pairs those completion-level terms with the specific control mechanisms — flow control chokes, valve position indication, autonomous inflow control — that distinguish a claimed system from a generic valve.
The 1,852 records in scope run from 2015 through the July 2026 cut-off. Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the last one to two years of the trend understate actual filing activity; treat 2024 as the most recent year with a complete picture.
Filing trend and technology mix
Two views of the same 1,852-record corpus: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A 2020 peak, then a pullback
Filings ran from 81 in 2017 to a peak of 241 in 2020, then eased to 72 in 2021 and 61 in 2024 — a -15% move over that three-year span. That is a retreat from an unusually active year, not a structural decline; 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete due to publication lag and should not be read as a falling trend on their own.
E21B dominates; everything else is a sideline
E21B (earth and rock drilling) appears on 94.5% of the 1,852 records, confirming that most claims are anchored to the well-completion apparatus itself rather than adjacent disciplines. F16K (valves and taps) at 5.9% is the largest secondary class, followed by material analysis (G01N, 2.0%) and alloys (C22C, 1.9%) — sensing, materials and electronics classes each stay under 3%, pointing to where claim density is thin relative to E21B.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,852 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Intelligent Completion and Flow Control with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about intelligent completion and flow control and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
US12359542B2 — Autonomous inflow control device system and method
A technique facilitates the inflow of desired fluids into a downhole well completion while restricting the inflow of undesirable fluids. The technique utilizes at least one autonomous inflow control device which is placed along a well completion to control inflow of fluid from an exterior to an interior of the well completion. The autonomous inflow control device utilizes a plurality of shiftable elements which automatically shift in their relative positions based on the density of fluid in the autonomous inflow control device. This automatic shifting causes the alignment or misalignment of flow openings so as to allow free flow of a desired fluid through the autonomous inflow control device.Filed by Schlumberger Technology Corporation, published 2025-07-15 — illustrates the density-driven shiftable-element approach that dominates current autonomous ICD claims.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20110198097A1 | Autonomous inflow control device and methods for using same | 193 |
| 2 | US7409999B2 | Downhole inflow control device with shut-off feature | 150 |
| 3 | US20060113089A1 | Downhole inflow control device with shut-off feature | 138 |
| 4 | US20090078427A1 | System for completing water injector wells | 122 |
| 5 | US20180058209A1 | Downhole Multiphase Flow Sensing Methods | 105 |
| 6 | US20150060084A1 | Autonomous flow control system and methodology | 100 |
| 7 | US20030155131A1 | Deep set safety valve | 98 |
| 8 | US20090065199A1 | Retrievable Inflow Control Device | 95 |
| 9 | US20080035350A1 | Downhole Inflow Control Device with Shut-Off Feature | 95 |
| 10 | US20160201425A1 | Degradable wellbore isolation devices with varying fabrication methods | 93 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward 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 a filing decision
Three read-throughs from the concentration, trend and citation data — useful for deciding where a new filing has room and where it does not.
The gate is narrow, not fragmented
Five assignees hold 78.8% of all 1,852 records and ten hold 88.2%. A new entrant is not competing against a long tail of small players — it is competing directly against a handful of incumbents whose claim portfolios already cover the dominant apparatus classes.
A cooling curve, not a dying one
Filings fell from 72 in 2021 to 61 in 2024, a -15% move that follows an unusually active 2020. Recent-year totals published after 2024 are still filling in given the roughly 18-month publication lag, so the true 2025-2026 trend is not yet visible in the data.
Almost everything sits in one drilling subclass
E21B alone touches 94.5% of records, meaning most claims are written against the well-completion apparatus itself. Secondary classes such as F16K (valves, 5.9%), G01N (material analysis, 2.0%) and C22C (alloys, 1.9%) are present but comparatively thin, which is where differentiated claim language is easier to find.
Older shut-off and ICD art still anchors the field
The most-cited record, US20110198097A1 on autonomous inflow control, carries 193 citations; several of the next most-cited records date to the mid-2000s. High citation counts here reflect legacy influence within a searched corpus, not that these mechanisms are the current commercial standard.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to intelligent completion and flow control, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who files, and how activity is shifting
Filing leadership is concentrated among a small set of oilfield-services and operator assignees, with visible recent pullback across several of the largest names.
One assignee dwarfs the rest of the ranking
The leading assignee's 1,251 records stand well above fifth place at 44 and tenth place at 25, a gap that is unusual even for concentrated fields and suggests one company treats this as a core, defensively-filed apparatus category.
Even the leader is filing less in the latest year
The top assignee dropped to 2 filings in the latest year, a -90% year-on-year move, and several other major assignees show zero filings in the same period. This mirrors the broader -15% cooling trend rather than signalling any single company's exit.
Co-filing is rare and mostly internal
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pairs link related entities within the same corporate family rather than independent partners — co-development across separate companies is the exception here, not the norm.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | 2 | -90% |
| InflowControl AS | 1 | — |
| Equinor Energy AS | 0 | -100% |
| Schlumberger Technology Corporation | 0 | — |
| SWELLFIX UK | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology B.V. | 0 | — |
| ACONA INNOVALVE | 0 | — |
| Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations LLC | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this
The dataset points to a narrow incumbent gate and a handful of thin technology classes — both are starting points for a more targeted search.
Map the incumbent's full portfolio
With one assignee holding 1,251 of 1,852 records, understanding exactly which claim variants it already owns is the first filter for any new filing in this space.
Run an assignee portfolio search in EurekaStress-test a claim against the cited prior art
The most-cited records date back to the mid-2000s and 2011; a new autonomous ICD or shutoff claim needs to be checked against that lineage before drafting.
Check novelty in EurekaExplore the thin IPC classes
F16K, G01N, C22C and the sensing-adjacent classes each sit under 6% of records — worth a targeted search before assuming the space is occupied.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee holds 1,251 of the 1,852 records in this dataset, far ahead of fifth place at 44 and tenth place at 25. The top five assignees together account for 78.8% of all records and the top ten for 88.2%, so filing activity is concentrated in a small group of oilfield-services companies and operators rather than spread across many independent players. Any competitive or freedom-to-operate analysis in this field should start by mapping that leader's full claim scope before looking at anyone else.
Filings peaked at 241 in 2020, then fell to 72 in 2021 and 61 in 2024, a -15% move over that three-year span. That reads as a pullback from an unusually active year rather than a collapsing field. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so it is too early to call the current trajectory falling or slowing based on the most recent years alone.
An interval control valve is typically an actuated device, opened or closed (often hydraulically) to manage flow in a specific zone of a completion. An autonomous inflow control device instead uses passive, fluid-property-driven mechanisms — such as density-sensitive shiftable elements, as described in the representative filing US12359542B2 — to restrict undesirable fluid inflow without external actuation. Both terms appear together in this dataset's search scope because claims frequently combine zonal control logic with one or the other mechanism.
Relative to the 94.5% of records anchored in E21B (earth and rock drilling), several adjacent IPC classes remain thin: F16K (valves and taps) at 5.9%, G01N (material analysis) at 2.0%, C22C (alloys) at 1.9%, and sensing- or electronics-adjacent classes such as G01V, H01L and H02N each under about 1.1%. These lower-density classes are where more differentiated claim language, particularly around materials, sensing and diagnostics for downhole flow control, is comparatively less contested.
With the top five assignees holding 78.8% of the 1,852 records in scope and the top ten holding 88.2%, this field sits toward the concentrated end of the spectrum: a new entrant faces a small number of incumbents with deep existing coverage rather than a fragmented field of small filers. The long tail beyond the ranked leaders is comparatively thin, reinforcing that most freedom-to-operate risk sits with a handful of named companies rather than being broadly distributed.
Research Intelligent Completion and Flow Control in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole intelligent completion and flow control 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.