Book a demo

Virtual Commissioning Patents: Leaders vs Long Tail 2026

Virtual Commissioning Patents: Leaders vs Long Tail 2026
https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/virtual-commissioning-with-digital-twins-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Updated 2026
Virtual Commissioning with Digital Twins: patents, leaders and open claim space
  • One filer dominates the ranking. the leader sits at 7,751 records against a fifth-place figure of 1,882 and a tenth-place figure of 1,287 — a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one.
  • Filing activity has already peaked. the trend rose from 953 filings in 2017 to a peak of 1,403 in 2022, then declined toward 70 in the most recent (partial) year.
  • Momentum is reversing at the top. several of the largest historical filers show year-on-year declines of -67% to -100% in the latest tracked year, including two names dropping to zero.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
9,932
Published Records
-26%
3-Yr Growth (lag-adjusted)
US
Leading Jurisdiction
100
Active Filers Ranked
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape covers 9,932 published records matched against virtual commissioning and digital twin terminology, spanning filings from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off. The search combines core concept terms — virtual commissioning, digital twin, hardware — with claim-level language around fidelity, commissioning time reduction, model build effort, signal mapping and controller behaviour, which narrows the corpus toward implementation-level claims rather than general simulation background.

Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent year in any trend line understates real activity; treat the last one to two years as a floor, not a ceiling. Family-level counts, where available, are the fairer comparison across jurisdictions since they neutralise continuation filings and multi-country duplicates of the same invention.

Filing activity, 2017–2026
  1. 1INTEL CORP7,751
  2. 2INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION5,654
  3. 3MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC3,801
  4. 4QUALCOMM INC2,425
  5. 5GOOGLE LLC1,882
  6. 6DELL PROD LP1,773
  7. 7SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD1,687
  8. 8KONICA MINOLTA INC1,667
  9. 9HUAWEI TECH CO LTD1,549
  10. 10NEC CORP1,287
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Virtual Commissioning with Digital Twins covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
The Data

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same corpus: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.

Filings rose to a 2022 peak, then declined

Filings climbed from 953 in 2017 to a peak of 1,403 in 2022, the midpoint of the tracked range, then fell toward 70 in the most recent partial year. A single peak followed by decline, rather than a plateau, points to a technology area that saw a concentrated wave of filing activity rather than sustained compounding growth.

Filings rose to a 2022 peak, then declined03757501,1251,500953201720182019202020211,4032022202320242025702026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

G06F dominates; control and AI classes trail well behind

G06F (electric digital data processing) leads the IPC composition at 12,134 record-class matches, followed by H04L (digital information transmission) at 3,700. Control and regulating systems (G05B, 1,341) and AI-based computing (G06N, 1,033) sit well below the top two, indicating that most claim language in this corpus is framed around data processing and communication architecture rather than control-loop or model-training specifics.

G06F dominates; control and AI classes trail well behindG06F · Electric digital data processi…12,13440.9%H04L · Digital information transmissi…3,70012.5%G05B · Control & regulating systems1,3414.5%G06N · Computing based on AI models1,0333.5%H04W · Wireless communication networks8242.8%G06T · Image data processing & genera…7212.4%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…6842.3%H04N · Pictorial communication (video…6432.2%Other8,61229.0%

Shares are the percentage of 29,692 class assignments (one record can carry several), not of the record count.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Virtual Commissioning with Digital Twins covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Virtual Commissioning with Digital Twins with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about virtual commissioning with digital twins and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key Patents

Most-cited records in the corpus

Highest-citation records
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US20050190059A1Acceleration-based theft detection system for portable electronic devices3,390
2US8279180B2Multipoint touch surface controller2,958
3US5600364ANetwork controller for cable television delivery systems2,067
4US6343324B1Method and system for controlling access share storage devices in a network environment by configuring host-t…1,790
5US5732074AMobile portable wireless communication system1,652
6US5779549ADatabase driven online distributed tournament system1,628
7US5611730AProgressive gaming system tailored for use in multiple remote sites: apparatus and method1,519
8US5601435AMethod and apparatus for interactively monitoring a physiological condition and for interactively providing h…1,409
9US5619644ASoftware directed microcode state save for distributed storage controller1,257
10US20070257890A1Multipoint touch surface controller1,006

Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records — read these as markers of foundational influence, not current relevance.

Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Virtual Commissioning with Digital Twins covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis

 
Where to run it
Fastest

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 →
For builders

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 →
Insights

What the numbers mean for filing strategy

Three read-throughs from the ranking, the trend and the technology composition.

Concentration at the top
7,751 vs 1,287
leader vs 10th place

One filer, then a steep drop

The leader's record count is roughly six times the tenth-place figure. Filing into this space means either avoiding the leader's claim territory entirely or building on a specific technical branch they have not staked out.

Based on the 100-company ranking returned by the data endpoint.
Trend direction
1,403 → 70
peak year to latest year

Past the filing peak

Activity peaked in 2022 and has declined since, with the caveat that the most recent year is partial and understated due to publication lag. This is not evidence the technology is exhausted — it may reflect consolidation of claims by early movers rather than declining interest.

Publication lag of roughly 18 months applies to the final one to two years.
Class composition
12,134 vs 1,341
G06F vs G05B record-class matches

Data processing outweighs control claims

G06F claim density is nearly nine times that of G05B, the control-and-regulating-systems class most directly tied to commissioning hardware. That gap suggests control-loop and machine-interface claims are comparatively less crowded than general data-processing claims.

Class counts are not mutually exclusive; a record can carry more than one IPC code.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to virtual commissioning with digital twins, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Co-assignee activity is limited
AssigneeCo-assigneeShared families
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)IBM UNITED KINGDOM LTD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT26
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)IBM (China) Co., Ltd.16
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korea)SNU R&DB Foundation7
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC6
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)Toshiba Corporation6
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korea)Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)6
Siemens AGSIEMENS CORP6
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)IBM DEUTSCHLAND GMBH5

Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in this corpus, and the strongest pairing links 26 shared records between two related corporate entities — cross-company joint filing is not a major pattern here.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Virtual Commissioning with Digital Twins covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players

Who holds the ground, and where it is thinning

The ranking is led by a single large filer with a long tail behind it, and several of the historically largest names are pulling back sharply in the latest tracked year.

Leader
7,751
records

Dominant single filer

The top-ranked assignee holds a record count several multiples above the rest of the ranked leaders, consistent with an early and sustained filing programme across the corpus's full 2015-2026 window.

Ranking counted in records, not families.
Mid-tier
1,882
fifth place

A meaningful second tier

Fifth place sits at 1,882 records — well below the leader but still a substantial filing programme, suggesting a small group of established players rather than a single dominant plus scattered singletons.

Tenth place sits at 1,287.
Momentum
-100% YoY
two names, latest year

Historical leaders pulling back

Several of the largest historical filers, including names tied to IBM and Dell entities in this corpus, show zero filings in the latest tracked year. Others show declines between -67% and -96%. This does not necessarily signal exit — it may reflect filing timing or a shift to unpublished applications.

Latest-year figures are partial due to publication lag.
🔍
Under-claimed branches worth a closer look
Sub-areas where filing density is comparatively thin relative to the corpus core.
Edge-case scenario generation for commissioning validationSignal-mapping standardisation between PLC and twin modelsModel build-effort reduction toolingController-in-the-loop fidelity calibrationReusable twin component libraries
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Intel Corporation1-96%
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC1-94%
Imagination Technologies Limited1-75%
Texas Instruments Incorporated1-67%
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)0-100%
Dell Products L.P.0-100%
Qualcomm Incorporated0-100%
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korea)0-100%
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Virtual Commissioning with Digital Twins covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next

Where to take this analysis

The dataset points to a few concrete next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, whitespace identification, or competitive monitoring.

Check freedom-to-operate against the leader

Given the leader's scale relative to the rest of the ranking, any filing strategy in this space should start by mapping their specific claim scope rather than assuming general crowding.

Explore assignee claims in Eureka →

Watch for the post-peak shakeout

With filing past its 2022 peak and several major filers dropping to zero, the next 12-18 months of publications (once lag catches up) will show whether this is consolidation or genuine pullback.

Track filing trends in Eureka →

Probe the under-claimed control-systems branch

G05B's comparatively low density relative to G06F suggests control-loop and hardware-interface claims are less occupied than data-processing claims broadly.

Run a whitespace search in Eureka →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Virtual Commissioning with Digital Twins covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about this landscape

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Virtual Commissioning with Digital Twins covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Virtual Commissioning with Digital Twins in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole virtual commissioning with digital twins corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.