Mobile Crane Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The five most active filers account for 61.2% of all 250 records in scope, and the top ten reach 76.0% — a small group has staked out most of the core claim space.
- Filing kept climbing through the recent complete years. From 2021 to 2024, filings rose from 6 to 8, a 33% increase, even as 2018 remains the single busiest year on record at 41 filings.
- Control and positioning art now rides alongside the mechanical core. B25J manipulator/robotics classes touch 24.4% of records and G01S positioning classes touch 12.0%, showing stability engineering is no longer a purely structural discipline.
Filing growth compares 2021 (6 records) with 2024 (8) — 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 250 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent records at the intersection of mobile crane structure — telescopic booms, outrigger supports, counterweight configuration — and the stability control art that governs how a crane knows its own limits: load moment limiters, ground bearing pressure, boom deflection, wind load limits and tipping stability. The search deliberately pairs a mechanical vocabulary with a sensing-and-control vocabulary, because modern stability claims rarely sit in one without the other.
Coverage runs from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with 250 published records in scope. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years understate actual filing activity and should be read as provisional rather than a genuine slowdown.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 250 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the underlying claims actually sit in.
Filing activity, 2017–2026
Filings peaked at 41 in 2018, the busiest year in the window. The 2021-to-2024 span — the most recent stretch that can be treated as complete — shows filings rising from 6 to 8, a 33% increase; the tapering shown for 2025 and 2026 reflects publication lag rather than a real drop in filing.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
B66C (cranes and hoists) anchors the field at 75.2% of the 250 records, as expected for a crane-specific search. What is notable is the depth of adjacent classes: B25J (manipulators and robots) at 24.4%, G05B (control and regulating systems) at 15.6%, and G01S (radar, sonar and positioning) at 12.0% — together they show that stability claims increasingly lean on sensing and control logic rather than mechanical design alone. Because records carry multiple classes, these shares sum to more than 100% and should be read against the 250-record total, not against each other.
Shares are the percentage of the 250 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Mobile Crane Structure and Stability with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about mobile crane structure and stability and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
Mobile crane — Liebherr-Werk Ehingen GmbH, published 2025-01-02
The disclosure describes a rough-terrain mobile crane with a boom that pivots about a horizontal axis via a hydraulic luffing cylinder. A hydraulic control block governs the luffing cylinder, and a first safety valve seals the load-bearing cylinder chamber in a blocking position. A second safety valve is connected in series between the first safety valve and the control block, adding a redundant blocking stage to the load-holding circuit.Filed as US20250002301A1; the double-valve arrangement targets fail-safe load holding rather than a new mechanical boom geometry.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20190224846A1 | Dynamic compensation of a robot arm mounted on a flexble arm | 76 |
| 2 | US5711440A | Suspension load and tipping moment detecting apparatus for a mobile crane | 67 |
| 3 | US5586667A | Mobile crane with main and auxiliary counterweight assemblies | 66 |
| 4 | US4258852A | Auxiliary counterweight arrangement for mobile crane | 65 |
| 5 | US20210370509A1 | Backup tracking for an interaction system | 64 |
| 6 | WO2018009986A1 | Dynamic compensation of a robot arm mounted on a flexible arm | 64 |
| 7 | US4337601A | High-strength light-weight boom section for telescopic crane boom | 61 |
| 8 | US4257201A | Self-centering telescoping beams | 56 |
| 9 | US4658970A | Deflection reduction module for boom hoist cylinder of mobile crane | 54 |
| 10 | US20140116975A1 | Outrigger pad monitoring system | 45 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had longer to accumulate citations inside this corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current filing activity.
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-outs from the concentration, composition and citation data that matter for anyone deciding where to file next.
The core mechanical claims are largely staked out
With the five most active filers holding 61.2% of all 250 records in scope and the top ten reaching 76.0%, the base mechanical architecture of telescopic booms, outrigger supports and counterweight arrangements sits on dense prior art held by a small group. New entrants competing on pure structural geometry are filing into occupied space.
Stability is increasingly a control problem, not just a structural one
Manipulator and control-system classes appear in a substantial minority of records, alongside a 12.0% share for positioning and sensing (G01S). That pattern suggests differentiated claim space now lives in how a crane senses and reacts to load and wind conditions, not only in how it is built.
The most-influential prior art predates the sensing shift
The most-cited record in this set concerns dynamic compensation of a robot arm on a flexible base, followed closely by classic suspension-load and counterweight patents from the 1990s. High citation counts here reflect age and foundational status inside this corpus, not that these are the claims to design around today.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to mobile crane structure and stability, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where momentum has gone quiet
The leader board is short and the tail is long: a handful of established crane manufacturers hold most of the volume, and recent-year momentum has flattened across the names at the top.
One filer sits well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 61 records, more than four times the fifth-place figure of 15 — a gap wide enough to suggest a deliberate, sustained filing programme rather than opportunistic activity.
The drop-off from fifth to tenth is steep
Fifth place holds 15 records and tenth place holds 5, a three-fold decline across just five ranking positions. Below the top ten, filing activity thins into a long tail of occasional filers rather than a broad competitive middle.
Recent-year momentum reads as flat across established names
Several of the most established assignees show zero recorded filings in the latest year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this understates their real activity rather than signalling withdrawal from the field — but it does mean the most recent published picture favours whoever filed earlier and is only now surfacing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Fastbrick IP Pty Ltd | 0 | — |
| Manitowoc Crane Co LLC | 0 | — |
| Tadano Ltd | 0 | — |
| Harnischfeger Corp | 0 | — |
| Tadano Tekkosho | 0 | — |
| Liebherr-Werk Biberach GmbH | 0 | — |
| BRANDT EQUIP SOLUTIONS | 0 | — |
| Kobe Steel Ltd | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field where the mechanical core is settled and the control layer is still being contested.
Map the control-layer claims in detail
The 24.4% share held by manipulator and control classes, and 12.0% by positioning classes, suggests the more active frontier is sensing and control logic rather than boom or outrigger geometry. A claim-by-claim read of that subset would clarify how much room remains.
Explore the control-layer claims in EurekaTrack momentum below the top ten
With 76.0% of records held by the top ten filers, the remaining 40 ranked companies compete for a smaller share. Watching which of them file again in the next published year, once the publication lag clears, will show where new competitive pressure is building.
Monitor assignee momentum in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The dataset shows a concentrated leader board: the top-ranked assignee holds 61 records against 15 for fifth place, and the five most active filers together hold 61.2% of all 250 records in scope. This points to a small group of established crane manufacturers who have filed sustained programmes around boom, outrigger and load-moment control art rather than one-off filings. Anyone assessing freedom to operate should treat that top group as the baseline prior art to clear first.
Yes, based on the most recent years that can be treated as complete: filings rose from 6 in 2021 to 8 in 2024, a 33% increase. The peak year on record so far is 2018 at 41 filings, so activity has been uneven rather than steadily climbing. Figures for 2025 and 2026 look lower only because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, not because filing has slowed.
Beyond the core B66C crane and hoist class, which covers 75.2% of the 250 records, the next largest overlaps are B25J manipulators and robotics at 24.4% and G05B control and regulating systems at 15.6%. G01S positioning and radar/sonar classes appear in 12.0% of records. This shows that modern stability claims frequently combine mechanical crane structure with sensing and control logic rather than sitting in a purely mechanical category.
The technology composition data shows dense filing in the core mechanical classes but comparatively thinner coverage in specific control-layer applications: real-time wind load recalculation, sensor fusion across multiple outrigger ground-pressure readings, and load-moment limiter integration with positioning systems. These sit inside classes that are individually well represented (G05B, G01S) but the specific combination with crane stability logic is less crowded than the base mechanical claims. A first claim there would likely centre on a specific sensor-fusion or recalculation method rather than a new physical structure.
US20250002301A1, filed by Liebherr-Werk Ehingen, describes a rough-terrain mobile crane with a boom luffed by a hydraulic cylinder, where a second safety valve sits in series between a first safety valve and the control block to add a redundant load-holding stage. It blocks that specific dual-valve fail-safe arrangement for sealing the load-bearing cylinder chamber, not the general concept of luffing-cylinder safety valves. Engineers can likely design around it with a different valve topology, an alternative fail-safe mechanism such as a mechanical lock, or a single-valve design paired with redundant sensing rather than redundant hydraulics.
Research Mobile Crane Structure and Stability in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole mobile crane structure and stability 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.