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://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/advanced-materials-and-nanotechnology-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Advanced Materials & NanotechnologyAdvanced materials and nanotechnology patents: who is filing, and what is still open
- Filing is dispersed, not concentrated. the top 5 assignees together hold just 8.9% of the 5,982 records in scope, and the top 10 only 14.4% — a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants controls most of the field.
- Battery and catalysis chemistry dominate the class mix. C01B (non-metallic elements & inorganic compounds) and H01M (batteries, cells & fuel cells) each cover roughly a fifth of all records, well ahead of semiconductor and nanotechnology-specific classes.
- Filing has cooled from its 2020 peak of 393 records. but the only complete-year comparison available, 2021 to 2024, shows a -22% change — treat 2025-2026 figures as still filling in given the ~18-month publication lag.
5,982
Published Records
9%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-22%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (310 records) with 2024 (242) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 5,982 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 5,982 published patent families filed against a search spanning nanoscale materials, two-dimensional materials, stimuli-responsive materials, metal-organic frameworks, carbon materials and related electronic and functional materials, from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off. It captures both foundational nanotechnology claims and applied materials work that increasingly overlaps with battery and semiconductor patent filing.
The technology mix skews heavily toward energy-storage and catalysis chemistry rather than pure nanotechnology classifications, which signals that materials innovation in this corpus is largely being driven by application pull from batteries and chemical processing rather than platform nanoscience alone.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Advanced Materials & Nanotechnology Patent Landscape 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 Numbers
Filing trend and technology composition
Publication runs roughly 18 months behind filing, so treat 2025 and 2026 as incomplete rather than as a genuine drop-off. The comparison below uses only complete years.
Filing rose to a 2020 peak, then eased through complete-year data
Annual filings climbed from 332 records in 2017 to a peak of 393 in 2020. The only reliable complete-year comparison, 2021 (310) to 2024 (242), shows a -22% change over that three-year span — a real cooling, but not the cliff a naive read of 2025-2026 partial data would suggest.
Battery and catalysis chemistry lead the IPC mix
C01B (non-metallic elements & inorganic compounds) and H01M (batteries, cells & fuel cells) each appear in just over a fifth of all 5,982 records, with B01J (catalysis) at 13.4% and H01L (semiconductor devices) at 10.7%. B82Y, the IPC class built specifically for nanotechnology applications, covers only 9.2% of records — smaller than three chemistry- and device-oriented classes, which underlines how much of this field's activity is applied materials engineering rather than nanoscience proper.
Shares are the percentage of the 5,982 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Advanced Materials & Nanotechnology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Advanced Materials & Nanotechnology Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about advanced materials & nanotechnology patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative and most-cited filings
Representative Filing
pH-responsive silica metal organic framework nanoparticles for delivery of bioactive molecules
WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Provided herein are silica metal organic framework (SMOF) nanoparticles that are pH-responsive for delivery of bioactive molecules. The nanoparticles include an organosilica network comprising a plurality of imidazolyl and/or carboxyl groups; a metal organic framework component comprising a transition metal coordinated to a coordinating ligand, wherein the transition metal is selected from zinc, iron, zirconium, copper, and cobalt, and the coordinating ligand is an imidazolate or carboxylate ligand; and a bioactive payload selected from a hydrophilic drug, a polynucleic acid, a protein, or a protein-polynucleic acid complex.Filed by Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, published 2022-06-09. Chosen here as representative of the metal-organic-framework branch of the corpus rather than as the most-cited record.
Most-cited records in this landscape
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20030089899A1 | Nanoscale wires and related devices | 1,061 |
| 2 | US6413790B1 | Preferred methods for producing electrical circuit elements used to control an electronic display | 1,017 |
| 3 | US20160045841A1 | New and improved system for processing various chemicals and materials | 860 |
| 4 | US6521489B2 | Preferred methods for producing electrical circuit elements used to control an electronic display | 828 |
| 5 | US20050142361A1 | Amorphous carbon, amorphous-carbon coated member, and process for forming amorphous carbon film | 552 |
| 6 | US20100143798A1 | Nano graphene reinforced nanocomposite particles for lithium battery electrodes | 503 |
| 7 | US20160085003A1 | Materials, components, and methods for use with extreme ultraviolet radiation in lithography and other applic… | 434 |
| 8 | US20090305135A1 | Conductive nanocomposite-based electrodes for lithium batteries | 420 |
| 9 | US20100176337A1 | Process for producing nano graphene reinforced composite particles for lithium battery electrodes | 400 |
| 10 | US20070172739A1 | Composite solid electrolyte for protection of active metal anodes | 389 |
Citation counts accumulate over time inside a searched corpus, so older records such as the two circuit-element patents from the early 2000s naturally lead the table. Treat high citation counts as a signal of historical influence on the field, not as evidence that a given claim is still the one to design around today.
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 Advanced Materials & Nanotechnology Patent Landscape 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
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 filing pattern tells you
Three patterns stand out once you separate complete-year data from the still-filling-in recent years and look at where claims actually cluster by IPC class.
Concentration
8.9%
top 5 share of 5,982 records
No single assignee controls the field
The five leading assignees combined hold 8.9% of all 5,982 records, and the ranked ten hold 14.4%. That is a genuinely dispersed landscape: freedom-to-operate risk concentrates around specific claim clusters rather than around a handful of dominant portfolios.
Based on the full 100-company assignee ranking
Technology Mix
21.6% / 21.3%
C01B and H01M shares
Battery chemistry has absorbed the materials pipeline
C01B (non-metallic elements & inorganic compounds) and H01M (batteries, cells & fuel cells) each sit near a fifth of all records, ahead of B82Y's 9.2% nanotechnology-specific share. Materials claims filed today are more often framed around battery performance than around nanoscale novelty itself.
Shares sum to over 100% because records carry multiple IPC classes
Momentum
-22%
2021 to 2024 change
Complete-year filing has eased from its 2020 peak
Filing peaked at 393 records in 2020 and the only reliable complete-year window, 2021 (310) to 2024 (242), shows a -22% change. Several of the more established assignees show zero filings in the latest recorded year, consistent with a maturing rather than an expanding phase for those portfolios.
2025-2026 figures are excluded as publication-lag-affected
Citation Signal
1,061 citations
top-cited record
Influence sits with older nanoscale-wire and display-circuit art
The most-cited records in this corpus date to the early-2000s nanoscale-wire and electronic-display circuit filings, each with citation counts in the high hundreds to low thousands. That reflects accumulated influence over two decades, not that those claim areas are where today's filing activity is concentrated.
Citation counts favour older records inside any searched corpus
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 advanced materials & nanotechnology patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Advanced Materials & Nanotechnology Patent Landscape 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 is filing, and where the crowd thins out
The assignee ranking spans 100 companies and research institutions, led by a single company at 148 records with the fifth-ranked assignee at 78 and the tenth at 62 — a gradual taper rather than a cliff, which is consistent with the low top-5 and top-10 concentration figures.
Leader
148 records
leading assignee
One filer leads, but not by an overwhelming margin
The top-ranked assignee holds 148 records against 78 for the fifth-placed and 62 for the tenth-placed assignee in the ranking. The gap narrows quickly, which means competitive-intelligence attention should track a cluster of filers rather than a single dominant player.
Ranked across 100 assignees
Co-filing
62 shared records
strongest co-assignee pair
A small number of co-filing partnerships stand out
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with the strongest — Zhamu Aruna and Jang Bor Z — sharing 62 records. Most other pairs, including several Japanese corporate-university tie-ups, cluster far lower, suggesting most collaboration in this field is informal or unrecorded rather than structured joint filing.
10 co-assignee pairs identified in scope
Geography
2,439 filings
United States receiving office
Filing is US- and Europe-weighted, with India a distinct third
The United States receiving office accounts for 2,439 records, ahead of the EPO at 1,071 and WIPO/PCT at 721. India's 325 records put it clearly ahead of Germany (195) and Australia (166), marking it as a jurisdiction worth tracking rather than a rounding error.
Receiving-office counts, not family counts
Recent-year filing momentum
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Zeon Corporation | 0 | — |
| The Regents of the University of California | 0 | -100% |
| Lyten Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Aspen Aerogels, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| DIC Corporation | 0 | — |
| Toray Industries, Inc. | 0 | — |
| ZHAMU ARUNA | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Advanced Materials & Nanotechnology Patent Landscape 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 figures above establish the shape of the field. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going claim-by-claim in the sub-areas that matter to a specific project.
Map claim boundaries in the thinner sub-areas
The under-claimed branches identified here are a starting point, not a conclusion — the next step is reading the actual independent claims filed against each to see what is genuinely open.
Explore the technology in EurekaTrack the assignees showing renewed filing
Recent-year momentum data shows several established filers at zero in the latest year; pairing that with earlier-stage filers entering the space gives a fuller picture of where competitive pressure is actually building.
Monitor assignees in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Advanced Materials & Nanotechnology Patent Landscape 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
The assignee ranking covers 100 companies and institutions, led by a single assignee with 148 records. The field is not dominated by one player: the top 5 assignees combined hold only 8.9% of all 5,982 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 14.4%, so the bulk of filing activity sits with a long tail of smaller and single-filing entrants. This means competitive tracking should follow a cluster of filers rather than assume one company sets the terms of the field.
Filing rose from 332 records in 2017 to a peak of 393 in 2020, then eased: the only reliable complete-year comparison, 2021 (310) to 2024 (242), shows a -22% change. Figures for 2025 and 2026 look lower still, but publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so those years are still filling in and should not be read as a genuine collapse. The honest read is a cooling from a 2020 peak, not a field in decline.
C01B (non-metallic elements and inorganic compounds) and H01M (batteries, cells and fuel cells) each appear in a little over a fifth of the 5,982 records in scope, followed by B01J (catalysis, 13.4%) and H01L (semiconductor devices, 10.7%). B82Y, the IPC class specifically for nanotechnology applications, covers only 9.2% of records. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be summed as if they were exclusive categories.
The sub-areas with proportionally thinner claim density relative to the corpus's dominant battery and catalysis clusters include stimuli-responsive material actuation, two-dimensional material heterostructure integration, and metal-organic framework drug-delivery scaffolds. These are not empty fields, but they carry fewer records relative to the field average, which makes them worth a targeted freedom-to-operate review before assuming the space is occupied. Confirming that requires reading the actual claims filed in each branch, not just the class-level counts.
The United States leads with 2,439 records, followed by the European Patent Office at 1,071 and WIPO's PCT route at 721. India follows at 325 records, ahead of Germany (195) and Australia (166). The US and European weighting suggests most applicants are still prioritising the largest single markets and the PCT route for international coverage, with India emerging as a jurisdiction distinct enough to track on its own rather than lump in with the rest.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Advanced Materials & Nanotechnology Patent Landscape 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 Advanced Materials & Nanotechnology Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole advanced materials & nanotechnology 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.