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/offshore-floating-wind-offshore-platform-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Marine & OffshoreOffshore Floating Wind Platform Patents: Filing Trends and Who Holds the Claim Space
- Filing activity peaked in 2020 at 62 records and has since declined toward single digits by 2026, suggesting the current design wave has already been claimed rather than one still building.
- F03D and B63B dominate the IPC mix with 244 and 205 records respectively, while foundation (E02D) and control (G05D) classes sit at just 9 each — a much thinner layer of claims.
- No assignee shows positive momentum in the latest year every tracked leader logged zero filings in the most recent period, consistent with publication lag rather than a real pullback.
279
Published Records
48%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-56%
3-Yr Growth (lag-adjusted)
EP
Leading Jurisdiction
Published byPatsnap Research··8 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 279 patent families filed since 2015 that combine floating offshore wind terminology with structural claims on semi-submersible platforms, spar buoys, tension-leg platforms or floating substructures, narrowed further by IPC classes covering wind motors and marine vessel structures. The scope is deliberately structural: it captures how the floating hull and its mooring or ballast system are claimed, not the turbine nacelle or blade technology sitting on top of it.
Filings concentrate around a small number of receiving offices — Europe, the United States and the WIPO PCT route account for the bulk of activity, with Australia, Canada and the UK forming a second tier. That office spread points to a technology still being protected mainly in the jurisdictions where early commercial-scale floating wind projects have been sited.
Annual filing trend, 2017–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Offshore Floating Wind Offshore Platform 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
Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 279 families: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filings rose to a 2020 peak, then declined
Annual filings climbed from 18 in 2017 to a peak of 62 in 2020, then fell back toward the low double digits by the 2022 midpoint (13) and down to 2 by 2026. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the final one or two years understate true activity — but the multi-year decline from the 2020 peak is a genuine trend, not an artefact of the cut-off.
Structural classes dominate; controls and grid interfaces are thin
F03D (wind motors, 244 records) and B63B (marine vessels, 205) carry nearly all of the claim density, with E02B waterway engineering a distant third at 37. Foundations (E02D, 9), non-electric controls (G05D, 9), hydraulic machines (F03B, 7) and power switchboards (H02B, 5) each show only a handful of filings — these adjacent layers are far less contested.
Shares are the percentage of the 279 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 Offshore Floating Wind Offshore Platform covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Offshore Floating Wind Offshore Platform with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about offshore floating wind offshore platform and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited records in this space
Representative recent filing
Assembly, transportation and installation of floating wind turbines (Subsea 7 Norway)
SUBSEA 7 NORWAY AS
A spar-type floating offshore wind turbine assembly is transported with its longitudinal axis horizontal or at a shallow angle, then upended during installation to reach vertical orientation. Buoyant upthrust during transport comes from immersing the spar buoy's lower end together with at least one discrete support buoy attached offset along the spar, with a brace connecting the spar buoy to an upper structure.Filed by Subsea 7 Norway AS, published 2025-12-11 — illustrates continued claim activity around transport and installation logistics for spar-type substructures rather than the substructure geometry itself.
Top-cited patent families
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20130233231A1 | Floating Wind Turbine Platform and Method of Assembling | 84 |
| 2 | WO2017157399A1 | A floating wind turbine and a method for the installation of such floating wind turbine | 73 |
| 3 | US20160369780A1 | Floating wind turbine platform structure with optimized transfer of wave and wind loads | 51 |
| 4 | US20110316277A1 | Blade Pitch Control in a Wind Turbine Installation | 42 |
| 5 | US20190078556A1 | A floating wind turbine and a method for the installation of such floating wind turbine | 41 |
| 6 | US20160230746A1 | Floating Wind Turbine Support System | 37 |
| 7 | US9394035B2 | Floating wind turbine platform and method of assembling | 36 |
| 8 | WO2010076557A2 | Blade pitch control in a wind turbine installation | 33 |
| 9 | WO2021219787A1 | Floating wind semi-submersible with t-shaped pontoon | 25 |
| 10 | US9964097B2 | Floating wind turbine support system | 25 |
Citation counts are drawn from the searched corpus and favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations — read them as a signal of influence on later design choices, not of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Offshore Floating Wind Offshore Platform 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 indicate
Three read-throughs from the filing trend, the IPC split and the citation table.
Filing momentum
62 in 2020 → 2 by 2026
peak-to-latest filings
The design wave has already crested
Filings rose sharply into 2020 and have declined every period since, including at the 2022 midpoint of 13. That pattern looks like a technology that went through its main structural-claiming phase already, rather than one still accelerating toward commercial scale.
Treat the final one to two years as understated due to publication lag, not as a real collapse.
Claim concentration
244 F03D vs 9 E02D
wind-motor vs foundation records
Structure is crowded; foundations are not
F03D and B63B together account for most records, meaning the floating hull and turbine-mounting claims are dense. Foundation and earth-drilling claims (E02D) and non-electric control claims (G05D) sit at only 9 records each, a much thinner layer relative to the core structural classes.
Thin IPC counts do not mean the sub-area is solved — they mean it is less claimed.
Citation influence
84 citations, US20130233231A1
top-cited family
Early platform patents still anchor the field
The most-cited record dates to an early platform-and-assembly method filing, with the next several most-cited records also concentrated in platform structure and installation method claims rather than in electrical or control subsystems.
High citation counts favour older filings simply by virtue of longer exposure time in the corpus.
Filing geography
EPO 67, US 57, PCT 35
top receiving offices
Protection clusters around three routes
Europe, the United States and the WIPO PCT route together account for the large majority of filings tracked, with Australia, Canada and the UK forming a distinct second tier. That spread tracks the jurisdictions hosting early commercial-scale floating wind pilots and demonstration arrays.
A filer entering via a second-tier office faces a thinner prior-art screen there than at EPO or USPTO.
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 offshore floating wind offshore platform, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Offshore Floating Wind Offshore Platform 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
Who holds the claim space
Filing activity across the tracked assignees is concentrated among a handful of energy majors and offshore engineering specialists, with a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants.
Momentum check
0 filings, latest year
across every tracked leader
No assignee shows recent growth
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, from large energy companies to specialist floating-wind developers, recorded zero filings in the most recent period, and at least one shows a full year-over-year decline. This is consistent with the broader 2020-peak decline and with publication lag depressing the newest year across the board.
A flat recent-year read here says more about disclosure timing than about who is still active in R&D.
Collaboration signal
3 co-assignee pairs
identified in the dataset
Co-filing is rare, not the norm
Only three co-assignee pairings appear across the 279 families, and the strongest of these links a single Nordic developer to named individual inventors rather than to another corporate assignee. Most families in this space are filed by a single organisation.
Low co-filing suggests substructure IP is generally built in-house rather than through joint development agreements.
Citation leadership
5 records cited 41+ times
in the top-cited table
Influence sits with early platform and installation claims
The most-cited records are early platform-structure and installation-method filings, several of them sharing near-identical titles across related filings by the same family of assignees. That repetition suggests a small number of foundational filings have been reasserted across multiple jurisdictions.
Watch these families closely before filing new installation-method claims in the same geography.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Equinor Energy AS | 0 | — |
| Principle Power, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Havfram AS | 0 | — |
| University of Maine | 0 | — |
| EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG | 0 | — |
| CLOVERS AS | 0 | — |
| Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy | 0 | -100% |
| Single Buoy Moorings, Inc. (SBM Offshore) | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Offshore Floating Wind Offshore Platform 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 analysis
The filing and citation patterns above point to specific follow-up work rather than a single conclusion.
Map the installation-method sub-cluster
Several of the most-cited records concern transport and installation methods rather than hull geometry itself. A focused claim chart across these families would clarify how much freedom remains for new upending or ballast-transfer methods.
Explore installation claims in EurekaWatch the foundation and control classes
E02D and G05D each carry only 9 records against 244 in F03D. If floating wind foundations or non-electric control schemes are part of your roadmap, this is where a freedom-to-operate check is most likely to surface open space rather than blocking art.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaTrack assignee filing gaps against project timelines
Zero recent-year filings across every tracked leader may reflect publication lag rather than a real slowdown. Cross-referencing announced floating wind project timelines against expected filing dates would help separate the two.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Offshore Floating Wind Offshore Platform 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 about floating offshore wind platform patents
The dataset covers three principal substructure families: spar buoys, semi-submersible platforms and tension-leg platforms, along with broader claims to floating substructures generally. Spar-type designs feature prominently among the most-cited records, particularly around transport and installation methods, while semi-submersible and tension-leg claims tend to concentrate more on hull geometry and mooring arrangement. Each design carries different fabrication, mooring and installation trade-offs, and the patent mix reflects that spar buoys have drawn particular attention to how they are transported and upended during installation.
Filing activity is concentrated among a mix of major energy companies and specialist offshore engineering firms, with a long tail of single-filing entrants including universities and individual inventors. No single organisation dominates the recent-year filing count, and in fact every tracked leading assignee shows zero filings in the most recent year, a pattern more likely explained by publication lag than by an actual halt in R&D. Co-filing between organisations is rare in this dataset, with only three identified co-assignee pairs, suggesting most substructure IP is developed in-house.
Not on the current data. Filings rose from 18 in 2017 to a peak of 62 in 2020, then declined through a 2022 midpoint of 13 down to 2 by 2026. That said, the most recent one to two years are understated because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the true 2025-2026 filing level is higher than currently visible. The multi-year decline from the 2020 peak, however, predates that lag window and looks like a genuine slowdown in new structural claims.
The IPC composition shows structural classes such as F03D (wind motors) and B63B (marine vessels) are heavily claimed, while adjacent classes are comparatively open: foundation and earth-drilling claims (E02D) and non-electric control systems (G05D) each carry only 9 records against 244 for F03D. Specific under-claimed pockets include spar-buoy transport bracing, discrete support-buoy attachment geometry, and power-switchboard integration on floating hulls. A freedom-to-operate review focused on these thinner classes is more likely to surface open claim space than a review of core hull geometry.
The most-cited record in this dataset is a floating wind turbine platform and assembly method patent cited 84 times, followed by installation-method filings cited in the 40s to 70s range. High citation counts in a searched patent corpus tend to favour older filings simply because they have had more years to accumulate citations, so this should be read as a signal of historical influence on later filers rather than a ranking of current commercial importance. Anyone drafting new installation-method claims in this space should review these top-cited families closely, since their language has evidently shaped a large share of subsequent filings.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Offshore Floating Wind Offshore Platform 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 Offshore Floating Wind Offshore Platform in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole offshore floating wind offshore platform 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.