Offshore Wind Foundation Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- Filings peaked in 2022 at 52 and have since declined, suggesting the current wave of foundation and installation claims is now consolidating rather than expanding.
- E02B (hydraulic/waterway engineering) outranks F03D (wind turbines) itself, 121 records to 117 — installation and marine civil engineering carry as much of the claim weight as the turbine hardware.
- Europe dominates the filing map, with EPO, Netherlands, Denmark and Austria together outweighing the US and PCT routes combined.
Filing growth compares 2021 (28 records) with 2024 (19) — 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 209 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families at the intersection of offshore wind foundation design and the marine engineering needed to install them — monopiles, floating platforms, scour protection, mooring, corrosion protection and soil-structure interaction, filtered to IPC classes covering wind motors, hydraulic/waterway engineering and foundations. It spans 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, with 209 published records forming the assignee ranking.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are undercounts of what has actually been filed. The shape of the trend before that lag — a rise to a 2022 peak followed by decline — is the more reliable read.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 209-family dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A 2022 peak, then a pullback
Filings rose from 8 in 2017 to a peak of 52 in 2022, then declined toward the present. With the midpoint year already at peak, the growth phase for this specific claim space looks to be behind it rather than ahead — new entrants are filing into a more settled structure than early movers faced.
Marine engineering outweighs turbine hardware
E02B (hydraulic and waterway engineering) leads at 121 records, ahead of F03D (wind motors) at 117 and E02D (foundations) at 98. B63B (marine vessels) and B66C (cranes/hoists) both post meaningful counts, confirming that installation vessels and lifting equipment are claimed as heavily as the foundation structures themselves. Coating (C23C), spraying (B05B) and propulsion (B63H) are marginal by comparison, at 4 records each.
Shares are the percentage of the 209 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Offshore Wind Foundations and Installation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about offshore wind foundations and installation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited and most recent filings
US20250019047A1 — Method for installation of a monopile and installation vessel
Installation vessel for installation of a monopile to support an offshore wind turbine. The vessel has a pile holding device with a pile holder and a support assembly which is configured to move the pile holder in a horizontal plane relative to the hull. A monitoring system is configured to, in a gripping phase wherein the monopile is suspended from a crane and is to be gripped by the pile holder, monitor the suspended monopile in the horizontal plane relative to the pile holder. The system provides signals representative of the position and movement of the monopile relative to the pile holder to the motion control unit of the support assembly.Filed by ITREC B.V., published 2025-01-16.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2019231329A1 | Offshore vessel, preferably an offshore wind turbine installation vessel, a crane for providing such a vessel… | 34 |
| 2 | WO2018139918A1 | A method and tool for installation of an offshore wind turbine | 34 |
| 3 | US20210215139A1 | Offshore vessel, preferably an offshore wind turbine installation vessel, a crane for providing such a vessel… | 21 |
| 4 | WO2021180515A1 | Upending and lifting tool | 19 |
| 5 | WO2020106146A1 | TP-free monopile and method for forming the same | 17 |
| 6 | EP3502353A1 | Foundation building system for an offshore wind turbine and method for installation of an offshore wind turbi… | 16 |
| 7 | US20190195201A1 | Foundation building system for an offshore wind turbine and method for installation of an offshore wind turbi… | 15 |
| 8 | EP3574149A1 | A method and tool for installation of an offshore wind turbine | 14 |
| 9 | US20220002962A1 | Hybrid foundation for offshore wind turbines | 13 |
| 10 | EP3103924A1 | Monopile foundation for an offshore tower structure | 13 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they are not a measure of current commercial relevance.
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 volume, geography and citation data are read together.
The wave has crested
Growth ran from 8 filings in 2017 to a peak of 52 in 2022, then declined. A filer entering now is not staking a claim in a rising field — they are working around a claim structure that has already largely formed.
Installation method matters as much as hardware
E02B (waterway/hydraulic engineering) edges out F03D (wind turbines) in record count. Vessel and crane classes (B63B, B66C) add further weight, indicating that installation method claims — not just structural foundation claims — are a primary battleground.
Europe sets the filing centre of gravity
EPO leads at 57, with Netherlands, Denmark and Austria adding further European volume ahead of the 42 PCT and 41 US filings. Any freedom-to-operate check for European deployment needs to start with EPO prosecution history, not just US art.
Installation-vessel crane claims anchor the citation graph
The two most-cited records both concern cranes for upending monopiles from installation vessels, cited 34 times each. Citation counts favour older filings inside a searched corpus, so treat this as a marker of foundational influence rather than of what is newest or most active today.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to offshore wind foundations and installation, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is still open
The assignee ranking is a long tail rather than a small cluster of dominant filers, with recent-year momentum flat or negative across the named entities tracked here.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet
Every named assignee tracked for recent-year momentum shows zero filings in the latest year, with two posting a -100% year-on-year drop from the prior period. This is consistent with the post-2022 decline in overall filing volume rather than any single company stepping back.
Co-filing is rare and shallow
Only four co-assignee pairings appear across 209 families, and the strongest recurs just three times. Most patenting here is done by single entities rather than through joint-venture or co-development filings.
No single office dominates outright
The top three receiving offices — EPO, PCT and US — sit within a narrow band of each other, with Netherlands, Denmark and Austria adding further European depth. Filers need multi-jurisdiction awareness rather than a single home-market check.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| ITREC B.V. | 0 | — |
| TotalEnergies OneTech | 0 | — |
| Seaway7 Holdings | 0 | — |
| Seaway7 Engineering | 0 | -100% |
| Cyprus Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Phoenix II Limited | 0 | -100% |
| IQIP Holding B.V. | 0 | — |
| DEME Offshore BE N.V. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, whitespace filing, or competitive tracking.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on installation vessel cranes
The two highest-cited records in this corpus both cover crane systems for upending monopiles from installation vessels. Any new vessel or crane design should be checked against this pair before detailed engineering proceeds.
Explore installation vessel claimsMap the under-claimed branches before filing
Corrosion protection, soil-structure interaction sensing and mooring fatigue management sit well below the filing density of core monopile and crane claims. A first-filer advantage may still be available in these branches.
Review white space areasTrack European prosecution first
With EPO, Netherlands, Denmark and Austria together outweighing US filings, European patent offices are the more active battleground for this technology. Prosecution history there is likely to shape claim scope elsewhere.
Compare filing officesCommon questions about offshore wind foundation patents
The assignee ranking in this dataset is a long tail rather than a small dominant cluster, with 209 patent families spread across many filers. The most-cited individual records concern crane systems for upending monopiles from installation vessels, which points to installation equipment specialists and vessel operators as influential filers alongside turbine and foundation manufacturers. Recent-year momentum has gone flat across the named assignees tracked, so current leadership by citation count may not reflect who is filing most actively today.
No — filings rose from 8 in 2017 to a peak of 52 in 2022, then declined toward the present. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be, but the shape of the trend before that lag is a genuine decline from peak. A filer entering this space now is working within an already-formed claim structure rather than a rapidly expanding one.
Monopile claims in this corpus concentrate heavily around installation method — pile holding, upending and gripping systems on installation vessels — reflected in the strong overlap between E02B, B63B and B66C classes. Floating platform claims lean more on mooring and soil/seabed interaction where anchoring rather than pile-driving is the mechanism. Both routes are represented, but the installation-vessel crane claims carry the heaviest citation weight in this dataset.
Europe leads by receiving office, with EPO at 57 filings ahead of PCT at 42 and the US at 41, and Netherlands, Denmark and Austria adding further European depth. This reflects where offshore wind deployment and manufacturing has concentrated to date. A company assessing freedom to operate in this space should treat EPO prosecution history as a primary reference point, not a secondary check after US art.
Corrosion protection coatings for the splash zone, soil-structure interaction sensing, mooring line fatigue management and scour protection retrofit methods all show thin filing density relative to core monopile and crane claims. These are sub-areas of the IPC classes covered here (E02B, F03D, E02D) that are named in the search scope but not heavily claimed. That gap suggests room for a first claim, though it also means less prior art exists to validate that a given approach is commercially proven.
Research Offshore Wind Foundations and Installation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole offshore wind foundations and installation 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.