Rate Transient and Production Analysis Patents: Who Is Filing and What They Claim
Filing rebounded after a mid-decade peak. 2020 was the peak filing year so far at 8 records, and 2021-to-2024 filings climbed from 4 to 6, a 50% increase over that three-year span. Filings ran from 2 records in 2017 to a peak of 8 in 2020. The 2021-to-2024 window shows renewed growth, from 4 to 6 filings, a 50% increase; 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete due to publication lag and should not be read as a decline.
- 1SCHLUMBERGER TECH CORP11
- 2SAUDI ARABIAN OIL CO10
- 3XECTA INTELLIGENT PROD SERVICES8
- 4PETROCHINA CO LTD6
- 5SCHLUMBERGER CANADA LTD5
See the full rate transient and production analysis analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions about this landscape
What is rate transient analysis in patent terms, and how does it differ from decline curve analysis?
In this patent set, rate transient analysis and decline curve analysis are treated as overlapping analytical methods: both infer reservoir or well properties from production rate and pressure data over time, but decline curve analysis typically fits an empirical hyperbolic or exponential decline exponent to forecast future output, while rate transient analysis leans on flow-regime diagnostics like linear flow or pseudo steady state to derive physical reservoir parameters. Patents in this space frequently claim both approaches together, often paired with material balance time or flowing material balance techniques. The classification data shows these methods are usually claimed inside a broader drilling or well-management context (IPC class E21B), not as standalone mathematical methods.
Who holds the most patents in rate transient and production analysis?
The ranking in this dataset shows one assignee well ahead of the rest, holding 11 of the ranked records, compared with 5 at fifth place and 3 at tenth. Twenty-two companies appear in the ranking overall, and most of them hold only one or two records, which points to a small group of sustained filers surrounded by a long tail of occasional entrants. Because family counts, not raw document counts, drive this ranking, it reflects distinct inventions rather than continuation filings inflating any single assignee's count.
Is patent filing in this area growing or slowing down?
Filing peaked at 8 records in 2020 and then grew again from 4 records in 2021 to 6 in 2024, a 50% increase over that three-year window. Figures for 2025 and 2026 appear lower, but that reflects publication lag of roughly 18 months rather than an actual drop in filing activity, so those final years should not be read as a slowdown. Anyone tracking this space should expect the 2025-2026 counts to rise as more applications publish.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rate Transient and Production Analysis covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.