Machine Frame Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
Machine frame and structural fatigue patents: track frames, boom weldments and where the filing concentrates
71.4% of all 147 records sit with just five assignees, so most structural-fatigue claim space around track frames and boom weldments is already staked out by a handful of heavy-equipment makers. Filing activity peaked so far at 10 records in 2024. With fewer than four complete years available once the roughly 18-month publication lag is accounted for, a growth rate is not computable from this trend — treat the most recent one to two years as undercounted rather than as a slowdown.
- 1KUBOTA CORP34
- 2KOMATSU LTD28
- 3HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY CO LTD21
- 4CLARK EQUIPMENT CO12
- 5DEERE & CO10
See the full machine frame and structural fatigue analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions about this landscape
Who holds the most patents on machine frame and structural fatigue?
The ranking in this dataset covers 38 assignees, with the leading company holding 34 of the 147 records in scope and the fifth-place company holding 10. That gap means the leader’s granted claims effectively define the boundaries that other construction-equipment makers file around for track frame and boom weldment fatigue methods. It is worth checking that leader’s portfolio specifically before drafting new claims in this space, rather than relying on a keyword search alone.
What is the difference between B62D and E02F claims in this field?
B62D covers motor vehicles and steering and appears on 66.7% of the 147 records, while E02F covers excavating and earth moving and appears on 34.7%. Because a single patent record can carry both classifications, most track-frame fatigue claims are drafted to read on the vehicle-structure classification and the excavating-machinery classification simultaneously. This overlap matters for classification-based prior art searches: searching only one subclass will miss a meaningful share of relevant filings.
Is filing activity in machine frame fatigue patents growing or slowing?
The trend data shows a peak so far of 10 records in 2024, but a reliable growth rate is not computable from this dataset because fewer than four complete years remain once the roughly 18-month publication lag is factored in. The apparent drop-off toward 2025-2026 is very likely a publication-lag artefact rather than a real slowdown in filing. Anyone using this trend for forecasting should treat the most recent one to two years as understated.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Machine Frame and Structural Fatigue covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.