Anode Production Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 47.9% concentration. The top 5 assignees hold 318 of 664 records in scope — the field is concentrated at the top, not fragmented.
- Filings climbed 80% in three years. From 5 in 2021 to 9 in 2024, with 2022 the peak year so far at 17 — recent years are still filling in as publications lag filing.
- C04B and C25C dominate the composition. Ceramics/refractories claims sit in 37.0% of records and electrolytic metal production in 30.4%, showing the anode is claimed as much through material science as through cell electrochemistry.
Filing growth compares 2021 (5 records) with 2024 (9) — 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 664 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 664 published records matching anode baking furnace, green anode and calcined petroleum coke terms combined with pitch binder, anode density, air permeability, baking level, butt recycling or vibro compaction language, filed between 2015 and mid-2026. The search string ties raw-material and process terms directly to the quality controls that separate a workable anode from a defective one — density, permeability and baking level — so the corpus captures process patents rather than general carbon-material chemistry.
Records are drawn from receiving offices across the United States, Europe, WIPO's PCT route, Canada, Australia and India, reflecting where carbon plant operators and their equipment suppliers actually seek protection rather than where the underlying research originates.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 664-record corpus: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim volume.
Filing trend, 2015-2026
Filings rose from 5 in 2021 to 9 in 2024, an 80% increase over that span, with a peak of 17 in 2022. 2025 and 2026 figures are understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months; they should not yet be read as a slowdown.
IPC subclass composition
C04B (ceramics, cement and refractories) appears in 37.0% of the 664 records, C25C (electrolytic metal production) in 30.4%, and H05B (electric heating and lighting circuits) in 30.0% — together showing that anode production claims split fairly evenly between the carbon material itself, the electrolysis cell it feeds, and the furnace equipment that bakes it. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares sum to more than 100% and should not be added together.
Shares are the percentage of the 664 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Anode Production and Carbon Plant with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about anode production and carbon plant and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this corpus
US6524354B2 — Process for the production of low ash fuel
Describes a process for producing low ash fuel from calcined petroleum coke: crushing and screening the coke below 3 mm, mixing to a bulk density of 760-800 kg/m3, blending 10-100% of that coke with up to 50% coke breeze, pre-soaking with 5-10% water, mixing with binder and kneading under live steam, then briquetting and curing in a furnace under a controlled oxidising atmosphere.Filed by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research; granted 2003-02-25.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5083650A | Friction material having heat-resistant paper support bearing resin-bonded carbon particles | 158 |
| 2 | US6524354B2 | Process for the production of low ash fuel | 65 |
| 3 | US4439382A | Titanium diboride-graphite composites | 61 |
| 4 | US20040178063A1 | High swelling ramming paste for aluminum electrolysis cell | 60 |
| 5 | US5413738A | Graphite electrodes and their production | 51 |
| 6 | US4624766A | Aluminum wettable cathode material for use in aluminum reduction cell | 48 |
| 7 | US4332856A | Carbon or graphite article and method of making by impregnating with a lignin sulfonate complex | 47 |
| 8 | US5607770A | Carbon-carbon composites containing poorly graphitizing pitch as a binder and/or impregnant having a reduced … | 46 |
| 9 | US5538649A | Carbon composite mateiral for tribological applications | 43 |
| 10 | US6280663B1 | Process of making pins for connecting carbon electrodes | 41 |
Citation counts inside this corpus favour older filings and should be read as a signal of influence on later work, not as a marker 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 mean for a filing decision
Three readings of the same dataset, each pointing at a different practical question: where the claim space is occupied, where it is still open, and how fast it is moving.
The field is led, not fragmented
Five assignees account for 318 of the 664 records in scope, and the top 10 extend that to 63.6% (422 records). A newcomer filing broad process claims on baking or pitch binder composition is filing into ground the incumbents have already covered repeatedly.
Activity is building, not flat
Filings moved from 5 in 2021 to 9 in 2024, and 2022 remains the peak year so far at 17. The apparent dip after 2022 is partly an artefact of publication lag rather than a genuine retreat from the space.
Pitch chemistry is comparatively under-claimed
Against 37.0% in ceramics/refractories and 30.4% in electrolytic production, only 45 records (6.8%) sit in C10C, the subclass most directly tied to pitch binder chemistry itself. Given that pitch binder is a named search term, this gap suggests binder formulation is discussed but rarely claimed as the core invention.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to anode production and carbon plant, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where it is open
The ranked leaders sit alongside a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants; the gap between the two is where a freedom-to-operate review should start.
A clear top filer
The leading assignee holds 138 records, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 22 and the tenth-place holder at 20 — a steep drop-off that marks a genuine leader rather than a crowded plateau.
Consolidation shows up in joint filings
The strongest co-assignee pairing appears 22 times, consistent with corporate restructuring and joint ventures inside the carbon products supply chain rather than arm's-length collaboration between competitors.
Filing offices track operator footprint
The United States leads receiving offices at 175 filings, ahead of Europe at 102 and the WIPO PCT route at 70, with Canada, Australia and India each in the 38-57 range — a spread that follows where aluminium smelting and carbon plant capacity actually sits.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| UCAR Carbon Industries | 0 | — |
| GrafTech International Holdings Inc. | 0 | — |
| GREAT LAKES CARBON CORP | 0 | — |
| Alcan International Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Union Carbide Corp. | 0 | — |
| CII Carbon LLC | 0 | — |
| Rain Carbon Germany GmbH | 0 | — |
| Century Aluminum Co. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated top and a comparatively open pitch-chemistry branch; the next steps depend on whether the goal is defensive clearance or offensive filing.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the leaders
With the top 10 assignees holding 63.6% of all 664 records, any new baking furnace or pitch binder process claim should be checked against their portfolios before drafting.
Explore assignee portfolios in Eureka →Draft into the C10C gap
Pitch and tar chemistry (C10C) sits at just 6.8% of records against 37.0% in ceramics and refractories, suggesting binder-specific claims face thinner prior art than process claims around the furnace.
Map white space in Eureka →Common questions about anode production patents
The assignee ranking shows a clear leader holding 138 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked holder at 22 and the tenth-ranked holder at 20. The top 5 assignees combined account for 318 of the 664 records in scope, or 47.9%, and the top 10 extend that to 63.6%. This is a concentrated field where a small number of established carbon products and aluminium smelting companies hold most of the documented process claims, leaving a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants.
Filings rose from 5 in 2021 to 9 in 2024, an increase of 80% over that span, with 2022 standing as the peak year so far at 17 filings. Because patent publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any dataset understate true activity, so 2025 and 2026 figures should not be read as a decline. Taken together, the underlying trend through the last complete year points to continued rather than slowing investment.
Ceramics, cement and refractories (C04B) appears in 37.0% of the 664 records, electrolytic metal production (C25C) in 30.4%, and electric heating and lighting circuits (H05B) in 30.0%, making these the three dominant IPC subclasses. Non-metallic elements and inorganic compounds (C01B) and electrolytic production of compounds (C25B) follow at 18.5% and 14.2% respectively. Because a single patent can be classified under several subclasses, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should be read as overlapping coverage, not a strict breakdown.
US6524354B2 claims a specific process for producing low ash fuel from calcined petroleum coke: crushing and screening below 3 mm, achieving a defined bulk density range of 760 to 800 kg/m3, blending with coke breeze in specified proportions, pre-soaking, kneading with binder under live steam, then briquetting and curing under a controlled oxidising atmosphere. It is the second most-cited record in this corpus at 65 citations, held by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. Anyone working on coke densification or briquetting for fuel or anode feedstock should review its specific process parameters closely, since narrow deviations in density range or curing atmosphere are the most likely path around it rather than a broad process substitution.
Tar and pitch chemistry (C10C) accounts for only 6.8% of the 664 records, a notably thinner share than the 37.0% in ceramics and refractories or 30.4% in electrolytic production, even though pitch binder is one of the core search terms behind this dataset. This suggests that while pitch binder is frequently discussed in specifications, it is rarely the subject of the primary claim. Sub-areas such as butt recycling, vibro-compaction density control and baking level sensing also show comparatively thin direct coverage relative to furnace and cell-level claims, making them worth a closer prior-art review before drafting.
Research Anode Production and Carbon Plant in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole anode production and carbon plant 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.