Perforating Systems Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Five companies hold more than half the field. The top 5 assignees combine for 2,494 of 4,496 records in scope — 55.5% — with the top 10 reaching 78.7%.
- Filing has cooled from a 2017 peak of 233. Confirmed filings ran 186 in 2021 down to 68 in 2024, a 63% decline over that span; later years are still filling in as publications lag filing.
- One IPC subclass dominates claim scope. E21B covers 89.6% of records, while explosive-charge and blasting classes (F42B, F42D) sit far behind at 21.3% and 16.3%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (186 records) with 2024 (68) — 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 4,496 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
A mature oilfield niche with a concentrated top and a long tail
Perforating systems and shaped charges sit at the intersection of well completion and explosives engineering: guns, charges, detonating cord and the downhole hardware that opens a path from casing into formation. The dataset covers 4,496 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from a search built around perforating gun, shaped charge perforator and perforation tunnel claims paired with penetration depth, entrance hole diameter, underbalance perforating, gun clearance, detonating cord and crushed-zone permeability language. That pairing captures both the hardware claims and the performance metrics operators use to qualify a design.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 and has trended down since, with the most recent complete year, 2024, sitting well below the 2021 level. Ownership is concentrated: five assignees account for more than half of all records, and the next tier of five adds a further quarter. Behind that group sits a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants, which is where most of the technical variation in liner geometry, charge case material and gun-clearance tolerance actually lives.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 4,496-record set: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim weight. A record can sit in more than one class, so the composition shares add up to more than 100%.
Filing trend
From a 2017 peak of 233 published records, volume declined to 68 in 2024 (the last complete year), a drop of 63% from the 186 filed in 2021. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as provisional — publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the tail of the chart will keep filling in rather than representing a real collapse.
Technology composition (IPC subclass)
E21B (earth and rock drilling) touches 89.6% of the 4,496 records, confirming that most filings frame the invention as a wellbore tool first. F42B (ammunition and explosive charges) and F42D (blasting) trail at 21.3% and 16.3%, covering the charge and detonation mechanics themselves. Smaller classes — fuzes, detonators, propellants and geophysical logging — each sit under 5% and mark narrower, more specialized filings.
Shares are the percentage of the 4,496 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Perforating Systems and Shaped Charges with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about perforating systems and shaped charges and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
US9725993B1 — Constant entrance hole perforating gun system and method
A shaped charge built from a case, liner and explosive fill, where the liner's subtended angle (100°-120°), radius and aspect ratio are tuned so the resulting jet produces an entrance hole and perforation tunnel whose dimensions stay essentially constant regardless of casing thickness, composition, or the charge's position within the gun.Filed 2017-08-08. The claim's value is in holding entrance-hole geometry constant across variable field conditions, not in the shaped-charge concept itself.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6584406B1 | Downhole process control method utilizing seismic communication | 304 |
| 2 | US5971072A | Inductive coupler activated completion system | 275 |
| 3 | US20030037692A1 | Use of aluminum in perforating and stimulating a subterranean formation and other engineering applications | 236 |
| 4 | US20130062055A1 | Assembly and method for multi-zone fracture stimulation of a reservoir using autonomous tubular units | 231 |
| 5 | US5775426A | Apparatus and method for perforating and stimulating a subterranean formation | 215 |
| 6 | US6315043B1 | Downhole anchoring tools conveyed by non-rigid carriers | 213 |
| 7 | US5027708A | Safe arm system for a perforating apparatus having a transport mode an electric contact mode and an armed mode | 209 |
| 8 | US5052489A | Apparatus for selectively actuating well tools | 201 |
| 9 | US20050178282A1 | Integrated detonators for use with explosive devices | 193 |
| 10 | US9581422B2 | Perforating gun and detonator assembly | 189 |
Citation counts reflect influence inside this searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they are not a measure of current commercial importance.
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-throughs from the concentration, trend and citation data — useful for deciding where new claims stand a chance and where they will simply add to an already dense pile.
The gun and charge core is locked up
With the top 5 assignees alone accounting for 55.5% of all records, core perforating gun architecture and standard shaped-charge liner designs are heavily claimed by a small group of oilfield service majors. New entrants filing broad hardware claims in this zone are filing into dense prior art.
Volume is down, not demand
The drop from 186 filings in 2021 to 68 in 2024 tracks a maturing claim space more than a shrinking market — high filing density earlier in the decade means much of the obvious design space around liner shape and case material is already occupied.
Downhole electronics claims are thin
Connector and current-collector claims (H01R) and geophysics/logging claims (G01V) each sit at or under 1.7% of records, well behind the mechanical and explosive-charge classes. Instrumentation and telemetry integration with perforating hardware looks comparatively open.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to perforating systems and shaped charges, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the field, and where momentum has shifted
The ranked list runs 100 assignees deep, but the practical picture is a five-company core, a five-company second tier, and a long tail below. Recent-year filing counts are small enough that year-over-year swings should be read cautiously.
A single dominant filer
The top-ranked assignee holds 766 of the 4,496 records in scope, well clear of fifth place at 313, underscoring how much of the perforating gun and shaped charge core is controlled by one organization's filing program.
A steep drop after the top five
Filing counts fall from 313 at fifth place to 158 at tenth, and continue tapering into the ranked tail — most of the 100 ranked assignees hold a small fraction of what the leader does.
Recent-year activity is thin across the board
Several established assignees show zero or sharply reduced filings in the latest tracked year, while one shows a small increase off a low base. At these single-digit counts, the swings say more about publication timing than about strategic shifts.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | 4 | +100% |
| Schlumberger Technology Corp. | 1 | -86% |
| Hunting Titan, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Schlumberger Holdings Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology B.V. | 0 | -100% |
| DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH | 0 | -100% |
| Geodynamics, Inc. | 0 | — |
| DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with a locked core and a thinning tail. Two directions are worth pursuing before committing R&D or freedom-to-operate budget.
Map claim scope against the top holder's portfolio
With one assignee holding 766 of 4,496 records, any new perforating gun or shaped-charge filing should be checked against that portfolio's specific claim boundaries before drafting, not just against the general prior art.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTest under-claimed branches for a real opening
Connector, telemetry and crushed-zone-restoration claims sit at a fraction of the density seen in core gun and charge classes. That gap is worth validating against full-text claims, not just IPC counts, before treating it as white space.
Run a claim-density check in EurekaCommon questions on perforating system patents
Filing is concentrated among a small group of oilfield service companies rather than spread evenly across the field. The top 5 assignees in this dataset together hold 2,494 of 4,496 records in scope, which is 55.5% of the field, and the top 10 extend that to 78.7%. The single leading assignee alone holds 766 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked company at 313, so any competitive or freedom-to-operate review should start with that top group before looking at the long tail of smaller filers.
No — filing volume peaked in 2017 at 233 published records and has declined since, with confirmed filings falling from 186 in 2021 to 68 in 2024, a 63% drop over that span. That decline is more consistent with a maturing, densely claimed core than with a shrinking market. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so the most recent years will continue to fill in and should not be read as a continuing collapse.
E21B covers earth and rock drilling, including wellbore tools, and touches 89.6% of the 4,496 records in this dataset, reflecting that most filings frame the invention primarily as downhole well equipment. F42B covers ammunition and explosive charges and appears in 21.3% of records, while F42D covers blasting and appears in 16.3%; these two classes capture the shaped-charge and detonation mechanics specifically. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should not be summed or treated as mutually exclusive shares.
The classes with the lowest filing density relative to the core mechanical and explosive-charge claims are H01R (connectors and current collectors) at 1.0% of records and G01V (geophysics and logging) at 1.7%, compared with 89.6% for the core wellbore-tool class. That gap suggests downhole telemetry integration, connector hardware for gun strings, and instrumentation tied to perforating operations are comparatively under-claimed. Autonomous multi-zone fracture stimulation tooling and crushed-zone permeability restoration methods also show thinner coverage than the core gun and charge architecture, though any white-space conclusion should be checked against full claim text, not IPC counts alone.
US9725993B1, filed in 2017, claims a shaped charge with a liner subtended angle between 100 and 120 degrees, a specific radius and aspect ratio, engineered so that the resulting entrance hole and perforation tunnel dimensions stay essentially constant despite variation in casing thickness, composition or the charge's position in the gun. It does not claim the general concept of a shaped charge or a perforating gun, which are broadly established in prior art going back decades. Designs that achieve consistent entrance-hole geometry through a different mechanism — for example, alternative liner materials or charge case designs outside the stated angle and aspect-ratio ranges — sit outside this specific claim scope, though a full freedom-to-operate check should compare the exact claim language against any candidate design.
Research Perforating Systems and Shaped Charges in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole perforating systems and shaped charges 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.