Wave Energy Converter Control Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- Filing peaked in 2017 at 16 families and has not returned to that level, with the 2022 midpoint at 7 — a flat-to-declining trend rather than a growing one.
- Claim activity concentrates overwhelmingly in F03B (hydraulic machines), at 100 of 113 records, while G05B control-and-regulation itself carries only 4.
- The most-cited prior art is offshore mooring and wind-turbine hardware, not control logic, meaning today's algorithmic claims sit on comparatively thin citation foundations.
What this landscape covers
Wave energy converter (WEC) control covers the algorithms and hardware that govern how a power take-off (PTO) reacts to incoming waves — reactive control, wave-by-wave control, and the mechanical linkages that carry oscillating motion into usable electrical output. This dataset pulls 113 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine WEC or ocean-wave-energy terminology with power take-off, reactive, or wave-by-wave control language in the title, abstract, claims or description.
The set skews toward mechanical and electromechanical hardware rather than pure software control: hydraulic machines (F03B) dominate the IPC composition, with electric generators, gearing and structural waterway engineering following. Digital control classifications (G06F, G05B) are present but small, suggesting that most applicants still frame control inventions around the physical PTO rather than as standalone algorithmic claims.
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 113 families: how filing activity has moved since the field's peak year, and where those filings sit across the IPC classification system.
A peak that has not repeated
Filings hit 16 in 2017, the high point of the series, then eased toward a midpoint of 7 in 2022. Publication lag of roughly 18 months means the final one or two years will always undercount true filing activity, but even allowing for that, the trend reads flat to declining rather than accelerating.
Hydraulic hardware, not control software, carries the claim volume
F03B (hydraulic machines and engines) accounts for 100 of 113 records, an order of magnitude ahead of the next classes — F03D (wind motors, 18), E02B (waterway engineering, 17) and H02K (generators, 16). G05B, the classification most directly tied to control-and-regulation systems, holds only 4 records, and G06F (digital data processing) 8. That gap is the clearest single signal in this dataset: control-system claims are being written as extensions of hydraulic or electromechanical hardware claims rather than as freestanding software or control-theory inventions.
Shares are the percentage of the 113 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Wave Energy Converter Control System with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about wave energy converter control system and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art
Method for controlling a wave energy converter (EP3456956A1)
A method of controlling a wave energy converter comprising an energy absorber that oscillates when influenced by ocean waves, connected to a rotating power-take-off device with at least one rotational shaft and at least one connectable rotational inertia device. The method converts the absorber's oscillating movement into rotational movement, detects the actual frequency and amplitude of incident waves, and calculates a desired resonance frequency and amplitude for the converter.Filed by CorPower Ocean AB, published 2019-03-20 — one of the few records in this set that claims control logic (frequency/amplitude detection and resonance calculation) as the core invention rather than as an adjunct to a hardware claim.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20110241347A1 | Removable offshore wind turbines with pre-installed mooring system | 87 |
| 2 | US20110304144A1 | Method and apparatus for converting ocean wave energy into electricity | 74 |
| 3 | US8729723B2 | Removable offshore wind turbines with pre-installed mooring system | 43 |
| 4 | WO2010071433A2 | Removable offshore wind turbines with pre-installed mooring system | 31 |
| 5 | US20110062713A1 | Wave energy absorber | 27 |
| 6 | US8912677B2 | Method and apparatus for converting ocean wave energy into electricity | 24 |
| 7 | US9140231B1 | Controller for a wave energy converter | 23 |
| 8 | US20170101977A1 | Wave energy absorption device, a power take-off assembly and a wave energy system | 22 |
| 9 | US20180163691A1 | Model predictive control of parametric excited pitch-surge modes in wave energy converters | 20 |
| 10 | EP2284386A2 | Wave energy converter device | 19 |
Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and favour older filings; they are not a measure 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 say about the field
Three patterns stand out once the filing trend, IPC composition and citation table are read together.
The field has not re-accelerated since 2017
A single peak year followed by a decline to a midpoint of 7 in 2022 indicates the initial wave of PTO control filings has not been followed by a second wave. New entrants filing now are working against a smaller, older baseline rather than a fast-moving frontier.
Control claims ride on hydraulic hardware claims
F03B (hydraulic machines) carries 100 of 113 records; G05B, the classification built for control-and-regulation systems, carries only 4. Most applicants are protecting the PTO mechanism first and the control method as a dependent or secondary claim.
The most-cited prior art predates wave-by-wave control claims
The top-cited records in this corpus describe removable offshore turbine mooring systems and basic wave-to-electricity conversion, not reactive or wave-by-wave control algorithms. Newer control-specific filings are building on a citation base that was not written with control logic in mind.
US and Europe dominate, with PCT as a secondary route
The United States leads as a receiving office, followed by the European Patent Office and WIPO PCT filings, with the UK and Germany trailing well behind. Applicants protecting WEC control inventions are prioritising the two largest single markets before broader multi-jurisdiction coverage.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to wave energy converter control system, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape
No assignee in this dataset shows filing activity in the latest year, consistent with the flat-to-declining trend above. Co-assignee pairs cluster around a small number of research partnerships rather than a broad industry base.
Filings cluster around a few research partnerships
The strongest co-assignee links all involve the same small group of individuals and a national laboratory, each pairing appearing 8 times. This points to sustained institutional research programs rather than broad industry-wide collaboration on control methods.
No assignee shows active recent filing
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including established names in mooring systems and PTO hardware, shows zero filings in the latest year. Given the 18-month publication lag, some of this reflects reporting delay rather than a full stop, but the pattern is consistent across the group.
A modest, concentrated field
At 113 patent families total, this is a small, specialised landscape compared to broader marine energy categories. That makes individual assignee positions — and individual highly-cited records — proportionally more influential on the field's direction.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Single Buoy Moorings, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Ocean Harvesting Technologies AB | 0 | — |
| D'Eielson Associates LLC | 0 | — |
| MacTaggart Scott Holdings Limited | 0 | — |
| National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC | 0 | — |
| Differential Dynamics Corporation | 0 | — |
| ROBINETT III RUSH D | 0 | — |
| ABDELKHALIK OSSAMA | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing trend and IPC gap point to specific next steps depending on whether you are filing, licensing, or scouting for freedom to operate.
Check freedom to operate against the F03B core
With 100 of 113 records sitting in hydraulic machines, any new PTO control filing should be checked against that class first, not just against G05B or G06F control classifications.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaWatch for a second filing wave
The gap between the 2017 peak and the current flat trend leaves room for a resurgence as commercial WEC deployments mature. Recent-year momentum at zero across tracked assignees is worth re-checking as new publications clear the 18-month lag.
Track assignee filing activity in EurekaExplore the control-software gap directly
The thinness of G05B and G06F relative to F03B suggests standalone control-algorithm claims are less contested than hardware claims. A claim built around predictive wave-by-wave control logic, independent of a specific PTO mechanism, has less prior art to design around.
Explore white space in EurekaFrequently asked questions
In this landscape, it means any patent family combining wave energy converter or ocean-wave-energy terminology with power take-off control, reactive control, or wave-by-wave control language anywhere in the title, abstract, claims or description. Most of these filings protect the mechanical or electromechanical power take-off — the hydraulic cylinder, generator or gearing that turns wave motion into electricity — with the control method claimed alongside it. Relatively few filings claim the control algorithm as a standalone invention, which is visible in how thin the G05B control classification is compared to F03B hydraulic machines.
The dataset shows filing activity concentrated among a small group of assignees, including national laboratory research programs and specialist ocean energy companies, rather than a broad base of industrial players. Co-assignee pairings are strong but narrow, repeating across the same small set of individuals and institutions. No assignee tracked in this dataset shows filings in the latest year, which is consistent with the broader flat-to-declining trend since the 2017 peak.
The filing trend peaked at 16 families in 2017 and eased to a midpoint of 7 by 2022, without a clear second wave of filings since. This can reflect several factors: consolidation among early entrants, a shift toward trade secrecy for control algorithms rather than patenting, or simply a maturing hardware base where the initial wave of PTO mechanism patents has already been filed. Publication lag of roughly 18 months also means the most recent one to two years understate true activity, so the decline may be less steep than the raw numbers suggest.
Reactive control generally refers to tuning the power take-off's damping and stiffness to match the dominant wave frequency over a period, improving average energy capture. Wave-by-wave control adjusts the power take-off response to each individual incoming wave, aiming for finer-grained energy capture at the cost of more complex sensing and computation. Both terms appear in this dataset's search criteria, and patents combining either concept with a specific PTO mechanism — such as a rotational shaft and inertia device, as in EP3456956A1 — are common; standalone algorithmic claims for either approach are rarer.
The clearest gap is between the dense F03B hydraulic machine classification (100 of 113 records) and the thin G05B control-and-regulation classification (4 records), meaning control logic that is not tightly bound to a specific hydraulic or generator mechanism is comparatively under-claimed. Predictive wave-by-wave algorithms, multi-absorber array coordination, and adaptive inertia-switching logic all sit in this thinner space. A first claim there would be framed around the control method and its inputs, not around the specific PTO hardware it happens to run on.
EP3456956A1, filed by CorPower Ocean AB, claims a specific combination: detecting actual wave frequency and amplitude, then calculating a desired resonance frequency and amplitude for a power take-off built around a rotational shaft and at least one connectable rotational inertia device. It does not block control methods built on different PTO architectures, such as linear hydraulic cylinders or direct-drive linear generators, nor does it claim wave-by-wave control as opposed to resonance-frequency tuning. Anyone designing around it should look closely at the specific mechanical elements named in the claims rather than treating the wave-detection concept itself as blocked.
Research Wave Energy Converter Control System in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole wave energy converter control system 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.