Marine Safety & Monitoring Patents: Who Leads, Filing Trends 2026
- 13.7% concentration at the top. The top 5 assignees hold only 38 of 278 records in scope, so no single filer controls the field — the leader sits at 11 records.
- Filings grew 57% from 2021 to 2024. Activity rose from 23 records in 2021 to 36 in 2024, before a 2025 peak of 45 that is still filling in as later publications post.
- Ships and navigation dominate the claim space. B63B (ships & marine vessels) covers 37.4% of the 278 records, more than triple the smallest of the eight leading IPC subclasses tracked.
Filing growth compares 2021 (23 records) with 2024 (36) — 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 278 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 278 published records matched against marine safety and monitoring terms — vessel motion, hull structure, subsea flow, mooring systems and ocean-environment sensing — filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026. The scope spans hardware (buoys, hull sensors, mooring gear) and software layers (positioning, AI-based monitoring), which is why classes like G06N and G01D sit alongside traditional vessel classes such as B63B and B63C.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 filing counts in this dataset are understated relative to what will eventually be recorded for those years. Treat the 2024 figure as the most recent complete year for any trend comparison.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 278-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how records distribute across the IPC subclasses that define the technical sub-areas of marine safety and monitoring.
A rising filing trend through the last complete year
Filings moved from 2 in 2017 toward a documented +57% climb between 2021 (23) and 2024 (36), with a peak of 45 in 2025 — a year still incomplete in this data cut. The multi-year climb reflects broadening technical scope (sensing, AI-assisted monitoring) rather than a single breakthrough year.
Ships and navigation classes carry the bulk of filings
B63B (ships & marine vessels) appears in 37.4% of the 278 records, with B63C (launching & salvaging) and the navigation/positioning pair G01C and G01S each near 11.5%. AI-flavoured classes G06F and G06N sit lower but present, at 9.7% and 8.3% respectively — evidence that software-based monitoring is an established but not yet dominant claim strategy. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum above 100% and should be read against the 278-record total, not against each other.
Shares are the percentage of the 278 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Marine Safety & Monitoring Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about marine safety & monitoring patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this landscape
Marine monitoring system, control apparatus and marine monitoring method (US20240201418A1)
A marine monitoring system pairs a control device with at least one flight vehicle. The control device carries a sensor unit that measures underwater and sea-surface environment to acquire marine data, a control unit that directs the flight vehicle, and a communication unit that receives above-water data measured by the flight vehicle's own sensor and communication units.Filed by Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, published 2024-06-20.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6086220A | Marine safety light | 216 |
| 2 | US6469641B1 | Marine vessel monitoring system and method | 70 |
| 3 | CN101813476A | 近海波浪参数立体实时监测系统 | 67 |
| 4 | US20200172203A1 | Marine monitoring buoy with improved structure | 52 |
| 5 | US20020158776A1 | Marine vessel monitoring system and method | 49 |
| 6 | CN102540162A | 基于海杂波的低空电磁波传播特性估计方法 | 45 |
| 7 | US20170142515A1 | Systems and methods for monitoring and classifying marine animals based on acoustic signals | 44 |
| 8 | US20220324737A1 | Methods for monitoring marine waterbody sustainability at discharge sites | 38 |
| 9 | CN119312267A | 一种面向海洋生态的时空图神经网络异常检测方法及系统 | 31 |
| 10 | CN110542917A | 一种海洋环境核辐射监测系统及其监测方法 | 28 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations — read them as a signal of influence within this dataset, 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. 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 readings of the same dataset, aimed at where to file, who to track, and how much of the claim space is genuinely occupied versus merely populated.
No single filer dominates the field
The leading assignee holds 11 records and the top 5 combined account for just 38 of 278 records in scope — 13.7%. Even the top 10 reach only 23.0%. That is a fragmented field: a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants sits behind a modest cluster of repeat filers, not a handful of incumbents controlling the space.
Growth is real but recent years are still filling in
Filings climbed from 23 in 2021 to 36 in 2024, a 57% rise over that span, with a 2025 peak of 45 still incomplete under the roughly 18-month publication lag. Any read of 2025 or 2026 as a slowdown would be premature — the underlying trend through the last complete year is upward.
Vessel-structure claims still anchor the field
B63B (ships & marine vessels) touches over a third of the 278 records, well ahead of navigation (G01C, G01S) and AI-based monitoring (G06N) classes that each sit near or under 12%. The composition suggests hardware and structural claims remain the primary battleground, with sensing and AI-driven monitoring as a growing secondary layer.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to marine safety & monitoring patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| PD TECH MANAGEMENT | HBS HERF R & D | 5 |
| PD TECH MANAGEMENT | THE RES FOUND INST | 2 |
| Jiangsu Ocean University | Lianyungang Jingming Information Technology Co., Ltd. | 2 |
| BEACON MARINE SECURITY | PETITJEAN GERALDINE | 2 |
| BEACON MARINE SECURITY | LASH DAVID M C | 2 |
| BEACON MARINE SECURITY | LASH ANTHONY B | 2 |
| PD TECH MANAGEMENT | RICHARDSON DONALD GEORGE | 1 |
| Subevak Systems Co., Ltd. | PIKE GORDON J | 1 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest pair files together 5 times — most records in scope are filed by a single assignee.
The assignee landscape
The assignee ranking returned by the data endpoint covers 100 companies, counted in records — it is the complete ranking, not a curated top-50 or top-100 list. The field's structure is a shallow leader tier over a long tail rather than a single dominant filer.
A modest lead, not a monopoly
The top-ranked assignee holds 11 records against a field of 278 — enough to lead but far from controlling the technology. Fifth place holds 6 records and tenth place holds 5, showing the drop-off from leader to mid-field is gradual rather than steep.
China and the US anchor filing activity
China's receiving office accounts for 114 records and the United States 65, with India, WIPO (PCT), EPO and Australia trailing behind. That split points to where enforcement and freedom-to-operate checks matter most for anyone commercialising in this space.
Collaboration is the exception, not the rule
Just 10 co-assignee pairs exist across 278 records, and the strongest pair co-files only 5 times. Most organisations in this dataset file independently, which limits how much can be learned from partnership signals alone.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Rip Buoy Holdings Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| PD TECH MANAGEMENT | 0 | — |
| INTEGRATED MARITIME SOLUTIONS | 0 | — |
| Subevak Systems Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Jiangsu Ocean University | 0 | -100% |
| Kobelco Research Institute, Inc. | 0 | — |
| BEACON MARINE SECURITY | 0 | — |
| Zhejiang Ocean University | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a fragmented but growing field. These are the practical next steps for teams evaluating where to file or what to watch.
Map claim density before drafting
Search the B63B and B63C classes first, since they carry the densest prior art in this landscape, before drafting new hull, mooring or launch-and-salvage claims.
Explore technology classes in EurekaWatch the leader tier for continuations
With the top 5 assignees holding only 13.7% of records, small shifts in filing behaviour from the leading few can signal a real strategy change rather than noise.
Track assignee activity in EurekaRevisit 2025-2026 figures next cycle
Because publication lags filing by about 18 months, re-pull filing-year figures in a future cycle before drawing conclusions about a slowdown in the most recent years.
Set up trend monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on marine safety and monitoring patents
The dataset's assignee ranking covers 100 companies, and no single one dominates: the leader holds 11 records out of 278 in scope, and the top 5 combined account for just 13.7% of all records. This means the field is fragmented rather than controlled by a handful of incumbents. A newcomer evaluating freedom to operate should look across the full ranked list rather than assuming a small set of blockers, since the real risk is a long tail of narrow, specific claims rather than a few broad ones.
Yes, based on complete-year data: filings rose from 23 in 2021 to 36 in 2024, a 57% increase over that span. 2025 shows a higher raw count of 45, but that year and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so they should not yet be read as a peak or a plateau. Anyone tracking this space should expect the 2024 figure to be revised upward-adjacent years as more filings publish, and should treat 2025-2026 counts as provisional.
Ships and marine vessels (IPC class B63B) is the largest single class, appearing in 37.4% of the 278 records in scope. Launching and salvaging vessels (B63C) and the navigation-and-positioning pair G01C and G01S each sit near 11.5%. AI-related classes such as G06N appear in a meaningful but smaller share, around 8.3%, indicating that hardware and structural claims still outweigh software-driven monitoring claims in filing volume, even as the latter grows.
Relative to the dense vessel-structure and navigation classes, sub-areas like AI-assisted subsea flow monitoring, autonomous mooring-line load sensing, and flight-vehicle-assisted sea-surface data relay show thinner filing density in this dataset. These are not guaranteed-clear areas, but they carry less competing claim volume than the core B63B and B63C classes. Teams considering these branches should still run a targeted prior-art search, since class-level density figures do not capture every narrow claim that might already exist there.
China's receiving office accounts for 114 of the records in scope and the United States for 65, together representing the two largest filing jurisdictions by a clear margin over India (20), WIPO PCT filings (17), the EPO (15) and Australia (8). This split matters for freedom-to-operate work: a product intended for the Chinese or US market should prioritise clearance searches in those offices first, since that is where the bulk of enforceable rights in this dataset sit.
Research Marine Safety & Monitoring Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole marine safety & monitoring 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.