Premium Cabin Seat Kinematics Patents: Who Leads, Trends 2026
- 72.8% of all 180 records sit with just five assignees — this field is unusually concentrated at the top for a mechanical-systems category.
- Filings fell 83% from 2021 to 2024 (6 to 1), the steepest verifiable decline in the dataset, though 2025-26 counts are still filling in behind the publication lag.
- B64D aircraft equipment covers 82.8% of records while B60N vehicle seats sits at just 21.1% — rail and automotive kinematics claims are comparatively thin.
Filing growth compares 2021 (6 records) with 2024 (1) — 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 180 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This review covers 180 published records matching seat actuation, bed-conversion and privacy-divider claims across lie-flat and business-class cabin seating, filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026. The search string pairs mechanism terms (“seat actuation mechanism”, “linear actuator”, “seat shell”) with configuration terms (“bed conversion”, “herringbone configuration”, “footwell”, “privacy divider”), so the corpus is deliberately narrow to kinematic and layout claims rather than trim, upholstery or IFE integration.
Because a single family can be pursued across multiple offices and continuations, family-level counting is used wherever the dataset supports it. The assignee ranking below reflects 180 records across 25 ranked companies — read it as a distribution, not a full registry of every filer in the space.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 180 records: how filing activity moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings ran from 13 in 2017 up to a peak of 32 in 2019, then declined; the tracked decline from 6 filings in 2021 to 1 in 2024 is an -83% move over that span. The final one to two years in any such trend are always undercounted because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025-26 should not yet be read as a continued fall.
IPC subclass composition
B64D (aircraft equipment) touches 82.8% of the 180 records, confirming this is primarily an aviation-cabin category. B60N (vehicle seats generally) reaches 21.1%, and smaller shares in A47K, A61G, B60R, B61D, F16H and H02K show the mechanism claims occasionally cross into lavatory integration, patient transport, automotive and rail seating, and the underlying actuator hardware itself. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares are calculated against the same 180-record base and will sum to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 180 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Premium Cabin Seat Kinematics with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about premium cabin seat kinematics and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this space
EP3233636B1 — Toilet, First Class and Business Class Seat Integration
Filed by Safran Seats GB Limited and granted 2020-07-22, this record integrates lavatory and premium-seat layout claims — a configuration-level filing rather than a pure actuation mechanism, and typical of how cabin-integration claims get bundled with kinematic ones in this dataset.Publication date and assignee are rendered from the underlying record.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5193765A | Seating | 56 |
| 2 | US20090243358A1 | Vehicle Seating | 38 |
| 3 | US20140196206A1 | Modular Lavatory with Alcove | 35 |
| 4 | US20150001341A1 | High density aircraft seat arrangement | 34 |
| 5 | US20120223557A1 | Aircraft seating arrangement | 32 |
| 6 | US20160009395A1 | Integrated centerline lavatory galley monument | 31 |
| 7 | US8118365B2 | Vehicle seating | 29 |
| 8 | WO2009120308A2 | Vehicle seating | 28 |
| 9 | GB2500258A | Aircraft cabin seating arrangement | 27 |
| 10 | US20130025492A1 | Roller coaster with articulable seat backs | 24 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — treat this as a signal of influence on the field, not 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 read-throughs of the same dataset, aimed at where to file, who to watch and what the trend line actually supports.
A small group holds most of the claim space
With the top five assignees combined accounting for 72.8% of all 180 records and the top ten reaching 90.0%, new entrants are filing into a field where the dominant configurations — herringbone layouts, bed-conversion linkages, seat-shell actuation — are already claimed by a handful of established cabin-seating suppliers.
Activity has cooled from its 2019 peak
Filings peaked at 32 in 2019 and the last fully comparable window shows a drop from 6 in 2021 to 1 in 2024. That is a real slowdown in this narrowly-defined mechanism space, though it should not be read past 2024: publication lag means 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete.
This is an aviation category first
B64D aircraft-equipment claims cover 82.8% of the 180 records against 21.1% for general vehicle seating under B60N, so most of the mechanism art here is written and prosecuted as aircraft-specific rather than as generic seat kinematics that would also cover rail or automotive.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to premium cabin seat kinematics, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Zodiac Seats US LLC | Safran Seats | 5 |
| Zodiac Seats US LLC | Zodiac Seats France | 1 |
| MAGERIK | SIMPSON LESLIE JAMES | 1 |
| MAGERIK | BAYLISS BRIAN SYDNEY | 1 |
Only 4 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest pair recurs just 5 times — most of this field is filed solo rather than jointly developed.
Who holds the claim space
The ranked leaders in this dataset cover 25 companies across 180 records; the leader alone holds 41 records, fifth place holds 11, and tenth place holds 5 — a steep drop-off rather than an even spread.
One assignee sets the pace by a wide margin
The top-ranked assignee holds roughly triple the record count of fifth place, which sits at 11. That gap suggests a long-established cabin-seating supplier with a broad continuation strategy rather than a single breakthrough filing.
A cluster of established suppliers behind the leader
Places five through ten hold between 11 and 5 records each, consistent with a small set of aerospace-seating specialists each maintaining an active but narrower portfolio rather than one dominant challenger.
Single-filing entrants make up the rest of the ranking
Below the top ten, the remaining ranked assignees — including individual inventors alongside smaller firms — hold the balance of the 180 records, typically with only one or two filings each. Recent-year momentum across the leading assignees shows zero filings in the latest tracked year for each, consistent with the broader slowdown.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Safran Cabin Inc | 0 | — |
| Zodiac Seats US LLC | 0 | — |
| BE Aerospace Inc | 0 | — |
| Zodiac Seats UK Ltd | 0 | — |
| HENSHAW ROBERT J | 0 | — |
| Safran Seats GB Ltd | 0 | — |
| Adient Aerospace | 0 | — |
| SKYBUDI PTY LTD | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated leaderboard, a cooling filing rate through 2024, and technology space still open outside core aircraft-cabin claims.
Check freedom-to-operate on gearing and motor integration
F16H and H02K together cover under 2% of records each, well below the aircraft-equipment core — worth a targeted search before committing an actuator design.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in Eureka →Track the leading assignees' recent activity
Zero latest-year filings across the top assignees could mean genuine slowdown or publication lag; monitoring alerts will catch the correction as 2025-26 fills in.
Set up assignee monitoring in Eureka →Map adjacent rail and automotive seat claims
B60N and B61D show modest but real overlap with aircraft-cabin kinematics — a cross-sector claim map may reveal transferable mechanism designs.
Build a cross-sector claim map in Eureka →Common questions on this landscape
The dataset's ranked leader holds 41 of the 180 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 11 and tenth place at 5. The top five assignees combined account for 72.8% of all records, and the top ten reach 90.0%, so the field is dominated by a small group of established aerospace-seating suppliers rather than spread evenly across many filers. Anyone entering this space should expect to design around claims held by that leading handful before looking at the long tail.
Filing activity peaked at 32 records in 2019 and the most recent complete comparison shows a drop from 6 filings in 2021 to 1 in 2024, an 83% decline over that window. That said, publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 figures in any such dataset are understated and should not be read as continuing the decline. The honest read is that activity cooled markedly through 2024, with the very latest trend still unresolved.
The corpus combines seat-mechanism terms such as linear actuators and seat shells with cabin-configuration terms such as bed conversion, herringbone layout, footwell and privacy divider, which keeps it focused on kinematic and layout claims rather than trim or in-flight entertainment. IPC data confirms this: B64D aircraft equipment touches 82.8% of the 180 records, far ahead of B60N general vehicle seating at 21.1%. Smaller crossovers into lavatory equipment, patient transport, automotive, rail, gearing and electric motors each sit under 6% of records.
The IPC composition shows several branches with thin coverage relative to the aircraft-equipment core: gearing-based recline mechanisms under F16H and electric-motor actuator integration under H02K each cover only about 1.7% of the 180 records, and rail-vehicle seat-body claims under B61D sit at 2.8%. These low shares suggest configuration space — such as footwell stowage linkages or herringbone-divider actuation applied outside aviation — that has not been heavily claimed and is worth a freedom-to-operate check before committing a design.
Very limited: the dataset records only 4 co-assignee pairs across all 180 records, and the strongest pair appears together just 5 times. That points to a field where portfolios are built largely through solo, in-house filing by established cabin-seating suppliers rather than through joint ventures or shared development agreements between assignees.
Research Premium Cabin Seat Kinematics in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole premium cabin seat kinematics 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.