Offshore Wind Foundation Patent Landscape 2026
The offshore wind foundation space is moderately concentrated, with two co-leading filers — University of Maine and Principle Power — each holding the top position and the top five accounting for 36% of the hundred largest filers’ combined total. Activity peaked in 2022 and has eased since, though the most recent years remain subject to publication lag.
Two co-leaders top the rankings in a moderately concentrated field
University of Maine and Principle Power Inc share the top rank in offshore wind foundation patenting, each with 66 patent families. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy follows at 48 patent families, creating a small but visible gap to the third position.
The top five filers — University of Maine, Principle Power, Siemens Gamesa, Equinor Energy, and Freia Offshore — collectively represent 36% of the hundred largest filers’ combined total, indicating moderate concentration without a single dominant player able to foreclose broad design space.
| # | Applicant | Patent families | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | University of Maine | 66 | |
| 2 | Principle Power Inc | 66 | |
| 3 | Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy AS | 48 | |
| 4 | Equinor Energy AS | 38 | |
| 5 | Freia Offshore AB | 35 | |
| 6 | Single Buoy Moorings Inc | 23 | |
| 7 | Aerodyn Consulting Singapore Pte Ltd | 22 | |
| 8 | Vestas Wind Systems AS | 20 | |
| 9 | GOLDWIND SCI & TECH CO LTD | 15 | |
| 10 | Huaneng Clean Energy Research Institute | 13 |
| # | Applicant | Patent families | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Technip Energies France SAS | 13 | |
| 12 | SIF Holding NV | 11 | |
| 13 | Fred Olsen Ocean Ltd | 11 | |
| 14 | Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) | 11 | |
| 15 | Shanghai Jiao Tong University | 10 | |
| 16 | Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School | 10 | |
| 17 | PAUL A FRIEZE & ASSOCS | 9 | |
| 18 | PowerChina Huadong Engineering Corporation Ltd | 9 | |
| 19 | Seaway 7 Engineering BV | 9 | |
| 20 | APL Norway AS | 9 |
The joint leadership of an academic institution (University of Maine) and a specialist floating-platform developer (Principle Power) signals that foundational IP in this field remains shared between research-oriented and commercially focused organisations, creating licensing and partnership opportunities for integrators.
The most recent 18–24 months of data are subject to patent publication lag and therefore undercount current activity; recent-period figures should be interpreted as a floor rather than a ceiling. Longer-window growth, applicant concentration, and technology-route coverage are therefore more reliable signals than the latest-year bar alone.
Filing volume peaked in 2022; marine-vessel and wind-turbine classes dominate the technology mix
Two charts capture the temporal and technical shape of the corpus: annual filing volume from 2017 to 2026, and the distribution of activity across IPC technology classes.
Annual filing trend
Filings grew steadily from 2017, reached a plateau between 2019 and 2021, then peaked in 2022 at 110 families before easing to 74 in 2023 and 60 in 2024. The 2025 and 2026 counts of 34 and 2 respectively are heavily affected by publication lag and do not reflect actual recent invention rates.
↗ Hover for values · click a bar to ask EurekaTechnology composition
F03D (Wind motors / wind turbines) and B63B (Ships and marine vessels) are the two dominant IPC classes, consistent with the floating-foundation focus of the corpus. E02B (Hydraulic and waterway engineering) and E02D (Foundations and earth drilling) appear at materially lower counts, highlighting that civil-engineering and geotechnical perspectives remain secondary relative to naval-architecture and turbine-integration framing.
↗ Hover for values · click a bar to ask EurekaHighly cited patent families surfaced by the query
Citation-heavy patent families returned by the query. Use this section as citation context, not as a curated list of the most topic-specific patents.
Shared floating wind turbine foundation array with…
A shared floating wind turbine foundation array with angle-adjustable elastic moorings is formed by connecting floating wind turbine foundations. Each floating wind turbine foundation includes a wind turbine tower, upper pontoons, a truss framework, lower mooring drums, a lower wind turbine hollow pile, a fixed static mooring line and a shared anchor; the… (excerpt from the patent abstract)
| # | Patent | Citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Column-stabilized offshore platform with water-ent… | 224 |
| 2 | Column-stabilized offshore platform with water-ent… | 199 |
| 3 | Offshore floating wind power generation plant | 111 |
| 4 | Floating Wind Turbine Platform and Method of Assem… | 83 |
| 5 | A floating wind turbine and a method for the insta… | 72 |
| 6 | 半潜式海上浮动风机基础 | 59 |
| 7 | 半潜式海上浮动风机基础 | 56 |
| 8 | 可自浮安装的张力腿式海上浮动风机基础及其安装方法 | 54 |
Ranked by total forward citations. Citation counts favour older and broadly cited patent families, and broad or adjacent patents may appear when they match the search scope. Treat this section as citation context, not as a curated list of the most topic-specific patents. Some patent titles may be shown in their original, non-English language where an accurate translation could not be guaranteed.
What the patent structure means for R&D investment decisions
The combination of a post-peak filing curve, moderate concentration, and minimal co-applicant activity shapes where new entrants can realistically compete or collaborate.
Field is past its 2022 peak — core concepts are increasingly locked in
Annual filings peaked in 2022 and have eased since, placing the field in a decline phase relative to that peak. Core floating-platform and mooring concepts are now well-covered by the leading filers, raising the bar for broad foundational patents. R&D investment is most defensible in differentiated sub-system or site-specific innovations rather than platform-topology claims already staked by the top applicants.
Past-peak lifecycleModerate concentration leaves room for specialised entrants
With the top five filers representing 36% of the hundred largest filers’ combined total, and the joint co-leaders each at 66 patent families, no single entity commands an insurmountable position. The tier gap between the top two and the rest — Siemens Gamesa at 48, Equinor at 38, Freia at 35 — is real but not prohibitive. A focused programme targeting underserved technical branches could establish a credible position without requiring a head-on challenge to the co-leaders.
Moderate concentrationNo recorded co-applicant activity — ecosystem remains fragmented
The evidence contains no collaboration records for this corpus, indicating that joint-filing arrangements between companies or between industry and academia are either absent or not yet visible in the data. Given that University of Maine leads alongside commercial players, informal technology transfer and licensing may be the dominant IP-sharing mechanism rather than co-ownership. Formalising research partnerships could be a differentiating strategy for challengers.
Evidence pending: co-filingEurope and the US anchor the filing geography; Asia-Pacific is secondary
Europe (EPO) leads all jurisdictions, followed closely by the United States and WIPO (PCT), with China in fourth position. The UK, Canada, and Australia each show meaningful filing counts, reflecting the coastal markets targeted by floating-wind developers. South Korea and Japan have materially lower counts despite hosting shipbuilding and engineering firms active in the space, which may indicate a gap in Asian IP coverage that regional players could exploit.
EPO-led; AS-PAC gapGo beyond the landscape: Eureka’s TRIZ Solution agent breaks down an R&D problem and returns patented concept solutions, each with a technical approach and cited patent & literature evidence.
Co-filing pairs, ranked by the number of jointly-filed patent families.
University of Maine and Principle Power co-lead with distinct technology emphases
The two co-leaders share equal family counts but differ in technical focus: University of Maine spans marine-vessel and turbine-integration claims, while Principle Power is more heavily concentrated in marine-vessel stability and motion-compensation subclasses.
University of Maine
University of Maine holds 66 patent families and focuses on B63B 35 (Ships and marine vessels — floating structures), F03D 13 (Wind turbines — offshore installation), and B63B 21 (mooring systems). Its momentum trend is flagged as a new entrant in the recent window, suggesting recent filing activity represents a fresh push rather than a long-established programme. Its academic profile makes it a likely licensing source for commercial developers.
families: 66Principle Power Inc
Principle Power Inc also holds 66 patent families but skews more heavily toward B63B 35 and B63B 39 (ship stability and trim), with F03D 13 as the third pillar — a naval-architecture-first posture consistent with its WindFloat platform heritage. Its recent-window filing rate is down 50% versus the prior period, pointing to a mature and consolidating portfolio rather than active expansion.
families: 66| Applicant | Recent (3 yrs) | Trend |
|---|---|---|
| University of Maine | 4 | ▲ new entrant |
| Principle Power Inc | 8 | ▼ -50% |
| Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy AS | 13 | ▼ -62% |
| Equinor Energy AS | 7 | ▼ -77% |
| Freia Offshore AB | 2 | ▼ -94% |
| Aerodyn Consulting Singapore Pte Ltd | 2 | ▲ new entrant |
Under-served adjacent branches worth watching
Several IPC classes appear at low share within the corpus despite having plausible technical relevance to offshore wind foundations; they are observations of relative sparsity and are not validated commercial opportunities without further analysis.
E02D · Foundations & earth drilling
E02D covers geotechnical and seabed-foundation engineering — directly relevant to fixed-bottom monopile and jacket foundations and to suction-caisson anchoring of floating platforms. Its low share within the corpus suggests that civil and geotechnical engineering perspectives are underrepresented relative to naval-architecture framing. Specialists in seabed characterisation or novel anchoring systems could find less crowded IP ground here, with an entry path via collaboration with marine geotechnical consultancies.
Search this in Eureka →B66C · Cranes & hoists
B66C covers lifting and installation equipment. In the offshore wind context this maps to heavy-lift vessel operations and turbine installation tooling — a known bottleneck as turbines grow in size. The low count within this corpus is an observation of sparsity; the practical entry path would be through equipment OEMs or installation contractors who may be filing under different corpus definitions. The combination with floating-foundation logistics (e.g. wet-tow and upending procedures) represents a plausible niche.
Search this in Eureka →How the leading applicants differ across technology routes
Route coverage across the main technology branches in the current evidence set.
| Player | F03D 13 · Wind motors (wind turbines) | B63B 35 · Ships & marine vessels | B63B 21 · Ships & marine vessels | F03D 7 · Wind motors (wind turbines) | B63B 1 · Ships & marine vessels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Principle Power Inc | Moderate · 29 | Strong · 60 | Absent | Moderate · 23 | Moderate · 18 |
| University of Maine | Strong · 50 | Strong · 50 | Moderate · 14 | Absent | Moderate · 12 |
| Freia Offshore AB | Strong · 35 | Strong · 34 | Strong · 28 | Absent | Strong · 28 |
| Equinor Energy AS | Strong · 41 | Moderate · 20 | Moderate · 19 | Strong · 27 | Absent |
| Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy AS | Strong · 36 | Strong · 22 | Emerging · 7 | Strong · 27 | Absent |
| Single Buoy Moorings Inc | Strong · 24 | Strong · 24 | Strong · 24 | Absent | Moderate · 6 |
| Aerodyn Consulting Singapore Pte Ltd | Strong · 19 | Strong · 15 | Strong · 10 | Absent | Moderate · 5 |
Frequently asked questions
The corpus analysed contains 645 patent families covering offshore wind foundation technology on a global basis.
University of Maine and Principle Power Inc share the top position, each with 66 patent families. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy follows with 48, Equinor Energy with 38, and Freia Offshore AB with 35.
Europe (EPO) leads all jurisdictions, followed by the United States and WIPO (PCT), with China in fourth place. The UK, Canada, and Australia also show meaningful filing activity.
No. Annual filings peaked in 2022 and have eased since. The field is in a post-peak phase on an annual basis, though the most recent 18–24 months of data are subject to publication lag and undercount current activity.
F03D (Wind motors / wind turbines) and B63B (Ships and marine vessels) are the two dominant IPC classes, reflecting the floating-foundation and naval-architecture framing of most filings. E02D (Foundations and earth drilling) and E02B (Hydraulic and waterway engineering) are present at materially lower counts.
E02D (geotechnical foundations and seabed anchoring) and B66C (cranes and installation tooling) are among the lower-share adjacent branches in the corpus. These are observations of relative sparsity; whether they represent genuine white space depends on further analysis of filing activity outside this specific corpus definition.
Ready to map your own offshore wind foundation landscape?
Join 18,000+ innovators using PatSnap Eureka to map any technology landscape: search 2B+ patents and papers, surface key assignees, and generate a report like this in minutes.
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.