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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/engine-dynamometer-test-bench-control-system-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Automotive & EV SystemsEngine Dynamometer Test Bench Control System Patents
59 patent families, 103 records: Robert Bosch and China FAW tie atop a long tail of small filers in engine dynamometer control patents.
103
Published Records
59
Simple Patent Families
28%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction
103 published records collapse into 59 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 29 of 103 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 59 simple patent families and 103 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search string.
- Robert Bosch GmbH and China FAW Co Ltd are tied at the top of the listed filers, each named on 3 of the 59 families, with 50 of 52 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families each.
- G01M (testing machine & structure balance) appears on the largest share of families, at 64.4% of the 59 simple patent families in scope.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This search pulls records matching "engine dynamometer", "engine test bench" or "engine test stand" combined with control and torque or speed, with no date limit applied. It returns 103 published records that de-duplicate to 59 simple patent families, spread across 53 listed filers and 16 receiving offices.
59 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a wider field, and the page is best used as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a finished map.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 103 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 65 records from 2007 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (2 here); that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 30 of the 52 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 52 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Engine Dynamometer Test Bench Control System Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The numbers behind the page
Records, families and where filings landed
These figures are drawn directly from the search result: 103 published records de-duplicating to 59 simple patent families, with no date limit applied to the query.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (65 of 103 published records)
Counted by earliest filing year, this series runs from 2007 through the present; 2008 holds the highest count so far at 12 records. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as applications publish and should not be read as a decline.
Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two. This chart covers 2007-2026 (65 records); the 103 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition (IPC subclasses, share of 59 families)
G01M (testing machine & structure balance) appears on 64.4% of the 59 simple patent families, F02D (engine control) on 28.8%, and G01L (force & pressure measurement) on 15.3%. A family can carry more than one class, so these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 59 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Engine Dynamometer Test Bench Control System Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Engine Dynamometer Test Bench Control System Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about engine dynamometer test bench control system patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative record
One record from the result set
First record returned by the search
Control apparatus for an engine test stand (GB2155659B)
ATLAS FAHRZEUGTECHNIK GMBH
A test-stand control apparatus permits the measurement of dynamic characteristic curves in a reproducible manner on a stationary test stand. The apparatus includes an engine rotational speed setter, a throttle valve setter and/or a torque setter. A clock generator delivers a clock pulse sequence divided by a reducer stage at a rate set by an operator, acting upon address counters that count off an address line. Address stores connected to the counters hold digital setting values indicating a characteristic curve, which are called up and passed through D/A converters.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in scope. It is shown to illustrate what the dataset contains, not to represent the dataset as a whole.
Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Engine Dynamometer Test Bench Control System Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
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 →Reading the dataset
What the figures show, and what they don't
Three figures from this search set the boundaries of what can be said about engine dynamometer test bench control patents without over-reading a small dataset.
Scope
59 families / 103 records
simple patent families / published records
Two different counts, two different uses
59 simple patent families de-duplicate the underlying inventions across countries; 103 published records count every publication of those inventions separately. Legal status is tracked only at the record level: 29 of 103 records (28%) were granted and in force at retrieval, with the remainder not broken out further.
No date limit was applied to the search string.
Filer concentration
3 families
largest single-row count
A tie at the top, then a long tail
Robert Bosch GmbH and China FAW Co Ltd each hold 3 of the 59 simple patent families, the highest count of any single row among 53 listed filers. 50 of those 52 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each; filer rows cannot be added together because one family can name more than one filer.
Filer names are not rolled up to corporate group.
Technology split
64.4% of families
share of 59 simple patent families
G01M carries the largest share of the IPC mix
G01M (testing machine & structure balance) appears on 64.4% of the 59 families, ahead of F02D (engine control) at 28.8% and G01L (force & pressure measurement) at 15.3%. These shares add past 100% because a family can carry more than one IPC class.
23 subclasses appear across the full result set.
Filing offices
23 records
largest single receiving office (China)
Records sit across 16 receiving offices
Counted in published records, China accounts for 23, the United States 17, and the EPO and Japan 13 each. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, and these figures are not shares of a smaller named list.
16 receiving offices appear across the full result set.
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 engine dynamometer test bench control system patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Engine Dynamometer Test Bench Control System Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Going deeper than this page
This landscape reports what one search string returned. The following moves narrow or widen that view inside Eureka.
Pull the granted claims directly
Family and abstract counts cannot establish claim scope. Before drawing any freedom-to-operate conclusion, read the granted claim set of the specific records that matter to your design.
Open claims view in EurekaRe-run with alternative phrasing
This string matches specific phrases for test benches and stands; equivalent systems described with other terms may sit outside it. Broadening or varying the query can surface records this page misses.
Adjust the search in EurekaCheck legal status record by record
28% of the 103 records were granted and in force at retrieval, but that status changes continuously and is not broken out by reason. Check individual records before relying on any status.
Review legal status in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Engine Dynamometer Test Bench Control System Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Frequently asked questions
Questions practitioners ask about this dataset
This search returns 103 published records that de-duplicate to 59 simple patent families, with no date limit applied to the query. A simple family groups together all the national and regional filings for the same underlying invention, so 59 is the figure to use when asking how many distinct inventions are in scope, while 103 reflects every publication across the offices the invention was filed in. Because the search string matches specific phrases plus control and torque or speed, records describing the same technology with different wording may not appear in these counts.
Robert Bosch GmbH and China FAW Co Ltd are tied at the top of the listed filers, each named on 3 of the 59 simple patent families. Below them, 50 of the 52 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is a long tail rather than a small group of large portfolios. The filer list covers organisations, with individual-inventor filings stripped out of the names shown but still counted in the totals, and rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer.
The IPC subclasses with the largest share of the 59 families are G01M (testing machine and structure balance) at 64.4%, F02D (engine control) at 28.8%, and G01L (force and pressure measurement) at 15.3%. A single family can carry more than one of these classes, so the shares add up to more than 100% rather than partitioning the dataset. Twenty-three subclasses appear across the full result set, but only the largest few carry enough weight here to describe with confidence.
Counted in published records (one per office an invention was filed in), the receiving offices with the most records are China with 23, the United States with 17, and the European Patent Office and Japan each with 13. Sixteen receiving offices appear across the full result set, and this list of six does not sum to the 103-record total because every record counts once per office rather than once overall. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, no nationality data is available for any entity in this set.
No single filer stands apart here: Robert Bosch GmbH and China FAW Co Ltd are tied at the top with 3 simple patent families each, out of 59 families in total. The remaining listed filers thin out quickly, with 50 of 52 holding 2 or fewer families, which describes a spread set of small portfolios rather than concentration at the top. With only 59 families in scope, counts this low cannot support a claim that any one entity controls the space, only that these are the filers this search returned.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Engine Dynamometer Test Bench Control System Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Engine Dynamometer Test Bench Control System Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole engine dynamometer test bench control system patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("engine dynamometer" OR "engine test bench" OR "engine test stand") AND control AND (torque OR speed))Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field. One subclass (G01M) carries 64.4% of the patent families, so this search returned a classification-tight set.
What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 103 records and 59 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.
Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list (2 of them here). Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 30 of the 52 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 52 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included
Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-27.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (29 of 103). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka
Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level
Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.
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 limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. 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, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records 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.
The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.
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.