Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/marine-autonomy-and-navigation-fault-tolerant-dynamic-positioning-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Marine Autonomy & NavigationFault-Tolerant Dynamic Positioning Patents: Mapping Marine Autonomy's Control Layer
- One leader, thin field. the top-ranked assignee holds 12 records against a field of 24 total published records in scope, with a long tail of single-filing organisations behind it.
- Filing already past its peak. activity crested at 15 records in 2017; the years since have not matched that level, though the most recent year is always undercounted by publication lag.
- Hull and launch dominate the claims. B63B (ships) and B63C (launching & salvaging) together anchor over 40% and 25% of the 24 records, while redundant control itself shows up mostly as a secondary class.
24
Published Records
GB
Leading Jurisdiction
10
Active Filers Ranked
2017
Peak Filing Year
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What this landscape covers
Fault-tolerant dynamic positioning sits at the intersection of marine control engineering and autonomy: it covers the sensors, thruster allocation logic and redundancy schemes that keep a vessel on station when a component fails. This dataset pulls 24 published records matched against dynamic positioning, redundant thruster control and autonomous or unmanned surface vessel terms together, so a record only qualifies if it ties positioning fault tolerance to an autonomy or navigation context rather than describing DP in isolation.
The scope is narrow by design. It excludes generic ship-control patents that never mention autonomy, and it excludes autonomy patents that never touch positioning redundancy. That intersection is small enough that a single well-resourced filer can visibly shape it, and small enough that white space is easier to see than in a broader marine-engineering search.
Records in scope by year and IPC class
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Marine Autonomy & Navigation — Fault-Tolerant Dynamic Positioning Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Filing Data
Filing trend and technology composition
The two views below use the same 24-record base: one tracks when filings were published, the other shows which IPC subclasses those filings touch. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, the class shares add up to more than 100% of the record total — that is expected and is the same denominator the chart uses.
Filing activity, 2017 peak to present
Publications ran at 15 in 2017, the peak so far, and the trend line runs down to 0 by 2026. Treat the last one to two years as understated: publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so recent activity has not fully surfaced yet.
Where the claims sit
B63B (ships & marine vessels) covers 41.7% of the 24 records and B63C (launching & salvaging vessels) covers 25.0%, making hull-and-deployment hardware the densest claim territory. Positioning and sensing itself — G01S — appears in only 16.7% of records, and traffic-control logic (G08G) in 12.5%, suggesting the control-and-redundancy layer is comparatively thin next to the mechanical vessel claims around it.
Shares are the percentage of the 24 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Marine Autonomy & Navigation — Fault-Tolerant Dynamic Positioning Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Marine Autonomy & Navigation — Fault-Tolerant Dynamic Positioning Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about marine autonomy & navigation — fault-tolerant dynamic positioning patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative and most-cited filings
Representative Filing
EP3448748B1 — Unmanned surface vessel for remote-controlled operation of underwater vehicles
KONGSBERG MARITIME CM AS
Filed by Kongsberg Maritime CM AS and granted 2022-04-06, this record describes an unmanned surface vessel configured to control underwater vehicles remotely — a filing that sits squarely at the intersection this search targets: autonomous surface control paired with underwater vehicle operation.Full claim scope, family members and prosecution history are available in Eureka.
Most-cited records in this dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2012010818A1 | Improvements in proximity detection | 42 |
| 2 | US20170291670A1 | Autonomous workboats and methods of using same | 31 |
| 3 | FR3087748A1 | DEPLOIEMENT ET LEVAGE DE CHARGES A L'AIDE D'UN VEHICULE SOUS-MARIN | 6 |
| 4 | CN110696999A | 一种移动式双体浮船坞 | 1 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate references; read them as a signal of influence within this searched corpus, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (4 of 4 rows); clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Marine Autonomy & Navigation — Fault-Tolerant Dynamic Positioning Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the numbers imply for strategy
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the IPC mix are read together: a concentrated leadership position, a filing wave that already crested, and a control layer that is thinner than the hull and deployment hardware around it.
Concentration
12 of 24 records
top-ranked assignee
One filer anchors the field
The leading assignee holds 12 records against a 24-record total, with the fifth-ranked and tenth-ranked assignees each holding a single record. That gap between the leader and everyone else means most of the field's precedent sits with one organisation, and any new entrant is effectively designing around that filer's claim set by default.
Assignee ranking, 10 companies
Timing
15 in 2017
peak filing year
The filing wave has already passed its crest
Publications peaked at 15 in 2017 and have not returned to that level since, though the 2025-2026 figures are understated by the usual 18-month gap between filing and publication. A buyer reading this trend at face value could mistake a maturing filing cycle for a shrinking one.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Composition
41.7% B63B
of 24 records
Hull and deployment claims outweigh control claims
B63B and B63C together touch the majority of records, while G01S (positioning and sensing) and G08G (traffic control) sit well behind at 16.7% and 12.5%. The redundancy and fault-tolerance logic that gives this landscape its name is present, but it is filed less densely than the vessel hardware it rides on.
IPC composition, 24 records
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to marine autonomy & navigation — fault-tolerant dynamic positioning patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Marine Autonomy & Navigation — Fault-Tolerant Dynamic Positioning Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players & Positioning
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders list returns 10 companies for this search — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, the full set the dataset produces. Behind the leader, most assignees hold a single record each, and the only repeated co-filing pattern is among a small cluster of individual inventors rather than corporate teams.
Leader
12 records
of 24 total
Kongsberg-side entities set the pace
The top-ranked assignee's 12 records make it the only filer with a body of work broad enough to read as a strategy rather than opportunistic filing. Rolls-Royce Marine and Kongsberg Maritime both appear in the ranking, reflecting the North Sea offshore-vessel heritage behind much of this dataset.
Assignee ranking
Long tail
1 record
fifth and tenth place
A wide field of single-filing entrants
From fifth place down to tenth, assignees hold one record apiece, including Forssea Robotics, a Shanghai ship-design institute, and a Singapore-based marine equipment maker. That spread suggests the technology is accessible to smaller or regional players even where one company dominates by volume.
Assignee ranking
Momentum
0 in latest year
across all six tracked assignees
No assignee shows recent-year activity
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including the leader, shows zero filings in the latest year. Combined with the publication lag, this reads as a quiet period rather than exit — but it also means no single filer currently signals where the next wave will land.
Recent-year momentum
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Kongsberg Maritime | 0 | — |
| AUTO RANGING & BEARING SOLUTIONS | 0 | — |
| Rolls-Royce Marine | 0 | — |
| FORSSEA ROBOTICS | 0 | — |
| Kongsberg Maritime | 0 | — |
| Shanghai Ship & Shipping Research Institute | 0 | — |
| WOOD NATASHA LOUISE | 0 | — |
| TIANCHENG ELECTRICAL MARINE EQUIPMENT PTE LTD | 0 | -100% |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Marine Autonomy & Navigation — Fault-Tolerant Dynamic Positioning Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this next
The ranking and trend data answer who and when; the next step is usually claim-level comparison against the specific sub-area a team is planning to file into.
Check claim scope before drafting
Compare a draft claim against the leader's granted family and the most-cited records to see how much of the redundant thruster and fault-detection space is already occupied.
Explore claims in EurekaTrack the quiet period
With every tracked assignee at zero filings in the latest year, monitoring new publications as they clear the 18-month lag will show whether this is a lull or a shift to trade secrecy.
Set up monitoring in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Marine Autonomy & Navigation — Fault-Tolerant Dynamic Positioning Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on this landscape
Within this 24-record dataset, one assignee associated with Kongsberg's maritime business leads with 12 records, well ahead of the rest of the ranked field. Rolls-Royce Marine also appears among the ranked assignees, reflecting a shared North Sea offshore-vessel heritage. Below the leader, most companies hold only a single record each, so the field is best described as one concentrated leader plus a long tail rather than several evenly matched competitors.
Filings peaked at 15 records in 2017 and have not reached that level again through the years tracked. However, publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so the low figures in the last one to two years understate real activity rather than proving a decline. A safer reading is that the field had an early filing wave and has since settled into a lower, steadier rate.
Ship and marine vessel hardware (IPC class B63B) appears in 41.7% of the 24 records, and launching-and-salvaging equipment (B63C) in 25.0%, making these the densest claim areas. Positioning and sensing technology (G01S) and unmanned aerial vehicle classes (B64U, B64C) each appear in a smaller share, around 16.7%. This means DP-specific redundancy claims are often bundled inside broader vessel or launch-system patents rather than filed as standalone control inventions.
The IPC composition shows control-and-redundancy classes such as G01S and G08G filed far less densely than the hull and launch-hardware classes that dominate the dataset, and G05D (non-electric variable control) appears in only a single record. That gap points to redundant thruster allocation logic, sensor-fusion fault detection tailored to unmanned surface vessels, and underwater-vehicle handoff protocols as areas with comparatively open claim space. Any filing there should still be checked against the leading assignee's existing family before drafting.
EP3448748B1, granted to Kongsberg Maritime CM AS in 2022, covers an unmanned surface vessel configured for remote-controlled operation of underwater vehicles — a specific combination of surface autonomy and underwater-vehicle control. It does not cover every unmanned surface vessel or every dynamic positioning scheme, so its practical block is narrower than the general topic. Anyone building a USV that does not perform this particular underwater-vehicle handoff function has more room to design around it than the citation count alone might suggest.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Marine Autonomy & Navigation — Fault-Tolerant Dynamic Positioning Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Marine Autonomy & Navigation — Fault-Tolerant Dynamic Positioning Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole marine autonomy & navigation — fault-tolerant dynamic positioning patent landscape 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.