Multistage Fracturing Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- Five companies hold 66.0% of all 530 records in scope — a field where the leader alone accounts for 128 filings against a fifth-place count of 34.
- Filings grew 48% from 31 in 2021 to 46 in 2024, the most recent year that can be read as complete once publication lag is accounted for.
- E21B dominates at 88.3% of records, but a meaningful secondary cluster sits in G01V geophysics (31.7%) and G06F data processing (11.7%), pointing to where diagnostics and control software overlap drilling claims.
Filing growth compares 2021 (31 records) with 2024 (46) — 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 530 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Multistage fracturing execution spans the mechanics and control logic of getting fluid, proppant and pressure to behave predictably across many perforation clusters in a single lateral. The search scope combines cluster spacing, limited entry perforating, treating pressure response, perforation erosion, diverter pill placement and proppant distribution against the core stage-isolation and multistage fracturing terminology, producing 530 published records between 2015 and mid-2026.
The dataset sits squarely in oilfield services and operator R&D rather than pure materials science: the dominant IPC class is E21B (earth and rock drilling), with secondary weight in geophysics surveying and digital data processing, which reflects how much of the recent claim activity is about sensing and controlling a frac stage in real time rather than the mechanical hardware alone.
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
Filing volume, receiving-office spread and IPC composition for the 530 records in scope, drawn directly from the underlying dataset.
A peak year followed by a rebound
Filings ran from 74 in 2017 to a peak of 81 in 2020, before the field cooled and then rebuilt: 2021 to 2024 shows a 48% increase, from 31 to 46 records. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under normal publication lag and should not be read as a slowdown.
Drilling mechanics plus a growing data layer
E21B covers 88.3% of the 530 records, confirming this is fundamentally a wellbore-execution field. G01V (31.7%) and G06F (11.7%) show a substantial secondary layer of geophysical sensing and digital processing claims, with G06N (6.6%) marking where AI-model claims are starting to attach to fracturing operations.
Shares are the percentage of the 530 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Multistage Fracturing Execution with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about multistage fracturing execution and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in the field
Determining proppant distribution for a plurality of clusters within a fracture stage
The filing describes computational fluid dynamics modelling of a wellbore section with and without perforation openings along a single azimuth, used to derive proppant efficiency, equilibrium concentration profiles and equilibrium velocity profiles for the purpose of predicting how proppant actually distributes across clusters within a single fracture stage.Filed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc., published 2021-05-06.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20110257944A1 | Modeling hydraulic fracturing induced fracture networks as a dual porosity system | 260 |
| 2 | US20170364795A1 | Petroleum analytics learning machine system with machine learning analytics applications for upstream and mid… | 197 |
| 3 | US20210087925A1 | Systems and methods for real-time hydraulic fracture control | 183 |
| 4 | WO2020097060A2 | Fracturing operations pump fleet balance controller | 170 |
| 5 | US20130140031A1 | System and method for performing optimized downhole stimulation operations | 147 |
| 6 | US20210003727A1 | Optimization design method for volumetric fracturing construction parameters of infilled well of unconvention… | 134 |
| 7 | US20170247995A1 | Evaluating far field fracture complexity and optimizing fracture design in multi-well pad development | 100 |
| 8 | US11377943B2 | Wellbore hydraulic fracturing through a common pumping source | 95 |
| 9 | US20180016895A1 | Method of performing wellsite fracture operations with statistical uncertainties | 81 |
| 10 | US20180355707A1 | Method of integrating fracture, production, and reservoir operations into geomechanical operations of a wells… | 70 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — read them as markers of influence on the field's vocabulary, not as an index of which technology is currently most active.
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 patterns stand out once you separate record counts from what they actually claim.
The top of the field is tightly held
Five assignees account for 350 of the 530 records in scope, with the leader at 128 filings and a sharp drop to 34 at fifth place. That gap between first and fifth suggests one dominant portfolio rather than a tight cluster of equally matched competitors.
Beyond the top ten, filing thins out fast
The ranked list runs to 79 companies, but the top 10 already account for 87.4% of the 530 records. Everyone past that point is filing in single digits, which is where niche diagnostic and software claims tend to sit unopposed.
Diagnostics claims sit next to drilling claims
Geophysics and surveying claims (G01V) touch nearly a third of records, and digital data processing (G06F) touches 11.7%, showing that a large share of recent activity is about interpreting downhole signals during a stage, not just the mechanical isolation hardware itself.
Growth is real but recent years understate it
The 2021-to-2024 window shows a 48% rise in filings, from 31 to 46. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 counts will keep revising upward and should not yet be read as a peak or a decline.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to multistage fracturing execution, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field opens up
The leaders in this dataset are large oilfield-services and operator names with long-running, multi-entity portfolios; the co-assignee pattern shows how tightly linked several of the top filers are internally.
One filer sets the pace by a wide margin
The top-ranked assignee holds 128 of the 530 records, nearly four times the fifth-place count of 34. Portfolios at this scale typically span hardware, sensing and control-software claims across multiple related entities.
Related entities file jointly and often
The strongest co-assignee pairs in the dataset link entities that are effectively the same corporate family operating under different regional or historical names, with pair counts as high as 25 shared filings. This inflates the apparent breadth of the top of the ranking.
The biggest names have gone quiet in the latest year
Every major assignee tracked for recent-year momentum shows a flat or sharply negative year-on-year change, with several at zero filings in the latest year. Given publication lag, this reads as reporting delay rather than an actual pullback from the technology.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Schlumberger Technology Corp | 1 | -67% |
| ConocoPhillips Co | 0 | -100% |
| Halliburton Energy Services Inc | 0 | — |
| Chevron U.S.A. Inc | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology B.V. | 0 | -100% |
| Schlumberger Canada Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| Services Petroliers Schlumberger SA | 0 | -100% |
| Southwest Petroleum University | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate or identifying open claim space.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top five
With 66.0% of all 530 records held by five assignees, any new filing touching cluster spacing or limited-entry perforating should be checked against that concentrated set before drafting claims.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaMap the G01V and G06F overlap
The secondary weight in geophysics and digital processing classes suggests real-time sensing and control claims are still being actively defined, not locked down by the top filers.
Run a white space search in EurekaCommon questions on multistage fracturing patents
The dataset's ranked leader holds 128 of the 530 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-place assignee at 34. The top five assignees combined account for 66.0% of all records, and the top ten reach 87.4%. Several of the leading names are related entities of the same oilfield-services group filing under different regional or historical names, so the effective concentration at the very top is even tighter than the raw ranking suggests.
Filings rose from 31 in 2021 to 46 in 2024, a 48% increase, after an earlier peak of 81 records in 2020. The apparent drop in 2025 and 2026 is a publication-lag artefact, not a real decline — patent applications typically publish roughly 18 months after filing, so the most recent one to two years will keep revising upward. Treat 2024 as the most recent year that can be read reliably.
E21B, earth and rock drilling, covers 88.3% of the 530 records, confirming the field is centred on wellbore execution mechanics. A secondary but substantial layer touches geophysical surveying (G01V, 31.7%) and digital data processing (G06F, 11.7%), reflecting growth in real-time diagnostics and control logic layered on top of the mechanical isolation and perforation hardware.
Based on IPC composition, the lighter-claimed branches sit outside the dominant E21B core — specifically AI-model-based prediction (G06N, 6.6%), analogue computation approaches (G06G, 4.0%), and vibration or acoustic sensing (G01H, 5.1%). These lower-density classes intersect with cluster efficiency prediction, perforation erosion monitoring and diverter placement tracking, areas that are mentioned in the search scope but not yet heavily claimed relative to the mechanical core.
Not reliably. The most-cited records in this dataset date back to earlier years and have simply had more time in circulation to accumulate citations within the searched corpus. High citation counts mark documents that shaped the field's vocabulary and framing, not necessarily the technology that is most actively filed on or commercially relevant now. For current activity, filing trend and recent IPC composition are better signals.
Research Multistage Fracturing Execution in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole multistage fracturing execution 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.