Subsea Connector Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
A data-led look at subsea connector patents: leading assignees, filing trends from 2015 through the current filing lag, IPC composition and where claim space remains open.
Filing growth = 2021 (7 records) → 2024 (1); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 250 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What the subsea connector filing record shows
Subsea connectors sit at the join between mooring, riser and foundation systems, and the patent record reflects that: most filings carry an IPC tag for ships and marine vessels alongside a secondary tag for wells or foundations. The dataset covers 250 published records from 2015 through the current data cut-off, drawn from a search string that combines title/abstract mentions of subsea connectors with claims-level mentions tied to marine systems, offshore structures or vessels. Patent families, not raw document counts, are the fairer unit here because they neutralise aggressive continuation filing and duplicate jurisdictional copies.
The picture that emerges is one of early concentration: a small group of assignees built out broad connector and mooring-line claim positions early in the period, and filing activity has slowed markedly since its 2017 peak. That does not mean the technology is settled — it means the most obvious claim territory has already been staked, and any new filing needs to be checked against a dense prior-art base before committing engineering resources to it.
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 250-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings peaked at 27 in 2017. The 2021-to-2024 window, the last span with reasonably complete publication, fell 86% — from 7 filings in 2021 to 1 in 2024. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the apparent drop-off at the very end of the chart should not be read as the technology winding down.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
IPC subclass composition
B63B (ships and marine vessels) appears on 85.2% of the 250 records, confirming that most subsea connector claims are framed as vessel or marine-system hardware first. E21B (wells) follows at 36.8%, reflecting the riser and mooring-to-wellhead overlap. Narrower classes — force/pressure measurement at 3.6% and fasteners at 3.2% — show where instrumentation and hardware-level claims are comparatively sparse.
Shares are the percentage of the 250 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Subsea Connector Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about subsea connector patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative filing and the most-cited prior art
Apparatus and method for gravity anchor installation (US20050166825A1)
Filed by Delmar Systems, this application describes methods and apparatus for installing gravity anchors for mooring marine structures. An anchor carries recovery and load lines terminating in subsea connectors at their upper ends, held by a trailing buoy inside a release frame; the anchor free-falls into the seabed once released, and the buoy and connectors remain accessible above the seabed for a mooring line to be connected later.Dated 2005-08-04 — one of the earlier filings in this dataset and a useful reference point for connector-to-mooring-line claim scope.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5044297A | Disconnectable mooring system for deep water | 112 |
| 2 | US20020166698A1 | Multipurpose unit with multipurpose tower and method for tendering with a semisubmersible | 62 |
| 3 | US20140026796A1 | In-Line Mooring Connector and Tensioner | 56 |
| 4 | US6601649B2 | Multipurpose unit with multipurpose tower and method for tendering with a semisubmersible | 49 |
| 5 | US20110011320A1 | Riser technology | 48 |
| 6 | US6685396B1 | Method and apparatus for suction anchor and mooring deployment and connection | 42 |
| 7 | US4375835A | Oil production system | 41 |
| 8 | WO2002087959A2 | Multipurpose unit with multipurpose tower and method for tendering with a semisubmersible | 39 |
| 9 | US5007482A | Offshore oil production system | 39 |
| 10 | WO2004035375A1 | Riser installation vessel and method of using the same | 35 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside this corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not as a marker of current 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 filing strategy
Four figures from this dataset that matter more than the headline count.
Filing sits with a small group
Five assignees account for just over half of all 250 records in scope, and the top ten extend that to 71.2%. A new entrant is not filing into open ground — it is filing against a small number of established claim holders.
Activity has cooled from its 2017 peak
The 27 filings recorded in 2017 have not been matched since, and the last complete three-year window shows a sharp decline. Whether this reflects claim exhaustion or a shift to trade-secret practice is not visible from filing counts alone.
Claims are framed as vessel hardware first
The dominant IPC class ties subsea connectors to ships and marine vessels rather than to wells or foundations directly, which shapes how examiners and competitors will read any new claim's scope.
Filing offices skew toward US and Europe
The United States leads with 58 records, followed by the EPO at 48 and WIPO/PCT filings at 30. UK, Australian and Norwegian offices each carry a meaningful share, consistent with where offshore operators and mooring specialists are based.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to subsea connector patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| My Tech LLC | YEMINGTON CHARLES R | 2 |
| Single Buoy Moorings Inc. | POLLACK JACK | 1 |
| Single Buoy Moorings Inc. | POLDERVAART LEENDERT | 1 |
| Delmar Systems, Inc. | SMITH MATTHEW W | 1 |
| Delmar Systems, Inc. | SHELTON JOHN T III | 1 |
| Itrec B.V. | VAN DUIVENDIJK PIETER DIRK MELIS | 1 |
| Itrec B.V. | ROODENBURG JOOP | 1 |
| Itrec B.V. | DRILLMAR INC | 1 |
Only 9 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest pairs link a single company to individual named inventors rather than to another corporate assignee — this is a field of solo corporate filers, not joint ventures.
Where to take this analysis
The filing record points to a concentrated top and a cooling trend, but it does not tell you what to file next. That requires mapping specific claim language against the gaps this data surfaces.
Map white space by claim element
Cross the under-claimed IPC branches — fasteners, force/pressure measurement — against specific connector mechanisms to find claim scope that is not already occupied.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the concentrated leaders
With half of all filings held by five assignees, monitoring their continuation filings and newly published applications is more useful than watching the field broadly.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaCheck design-around risk before committing engineering spend
The most-cited records in this dataset define the mooring and riser connector baseline that any new mechanical claim will be measured against.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaCommon questions about subsea connector patents
The ranking in this dataset covers 59 assignees, and it is concentrated rather than evenly spread: the top five hold 50.8% of all 250 records in scope, and the top ten hold 71.2%. This is not a top-100 or top-50 list — it is the complete ranked set the data returns, so a company absent from it simply has no ranked filings in this dataset. Anyone assessing competitive risk in this space should start with those concentrated leaders rather than the long tail.
Filing peaked at 27 in 2017 and has declined since, with the 2021-to-2024 window down 86% (from 7 to 1 filing). That said, 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset like this are still incomplete because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so the true current filing rate is understated. A drop in published counts in the most recent one to two years should not be read as the field going quiet.
The dominant class is B63B, ships and marine vessels, appearing on 85.2% of the 250 records in this dataset, followed by E21B (earth and rock drilling / wells) at 36.8%. Narrower classes such as F16G (belts, chains and cables), G01L (force and pressure measurement) and F16B (fasteners) each cover under 10% of records, which is where more specific hardware-level claims tend to sit. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC tags, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be summed.
The IPC composition shows connector claims concentrated in vessel-level and well-related classes, with force/pressure measurement (3.6% of records) and fasteners (3.2% of records) comparatively thin. That suggests instrumentation integrated into the connector body, and specific mechanical fastening or release mechanisms, carry less prior art than broad mooring or riser connector claims. Any white-space assessment should still be checked against the most-cited prior art in the dataset before committing to a claim direction.
This Delmar Systems filing from 2005 covers a specific gravity-anchor installation method: a free-falling anchor with recovery and load lines terminating in subsea connectors, held above the seabed by a trailing buoy inside a release frame. It blocks that particular sequence of anchor release, buoy-held connector positioning and later mooring-line connection, not subsea connectors generally. A design that avoids the free-fall gravity anchor and buoy-retention mechanism, or terminates lines differently, is unlikely to fall within its claims, though a full freedom-to-operate review should confirm claim scope directly against the granted claims.
Research Subsea Connector Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole subsea connector patent landscape 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.