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 →This dataset tracks 762 patent families filed against aqueous electrolyte, water-in-salt electrolyte and non-flammable electrolyte claims, filtered to records that also address electrochemical stability window, salt concentration, safety, low-temperature performance or cost. The IPC scope centres on H01M battery and fuel-cell classifications, cross-referenced against capacitor (H01G) and inorganic compound (C01G, C01B) filings that share electrolyte formulation claims.
Filing activity ran from 2015 through the current data cut-off of 2026-07-31, peaking in 2018 and declining through the most recent full years. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years in any trend chart will understate real filing activity — treat the tail of the curve as a floor, not a ceiling.
Two views of the same 762-family corpus: how filing volume moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim weight.
Filings rose to 21 records in 2017 and peaked at 32 in 2018. By the midpoint year of 2022, volume had fallen back to 22 — a flat-to-declining pattern rather than sustained growth, consistent with a field where core claim territory was staked out early.
H01M covers 761 of the 762 records, confirming this is fundamentally a battery-cell claim set. The next largest subclasses — H01G capacitors at 55 and C01G metal-oxide compounds at 50 — point to electrolyte formulations being claimed across adjacent energy-storage devices, not just cells, while polymer additive classes (C08L, C08K, C08F) show smaller but recurring activity around separator and binder chemistry.
Shares are the percentage of the 762 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about aqueous and non-flammable electrolyte systems and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaFiled by Honeycomb Battery Company, this record claims a rechargeable lithium cell built around a non-flammable electrolyte: a lithium salt dissolved in a liquid solvent at concentrations from 0.01 M to 10 M, engineered to a vapor pressure below 0.01 kPa at 20°C, a flash point at least 20°C above the base solvent, and in some formulations no flash point at all. Distinctively, the liquid solvent draws on cooking oils — palm oil, coconut oil, corn oil, soybean oil, cottonseed oil, peanut oil among the named options.Abstract condensed from the published filing; see the linked record for full claim language.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20140170488A1 | Collector, electrode structure, non-aqueous electrolyte cell, and electricity storage component | 556 |
| 2 | US6447958B1 | Non-aqueous electrolyte battery separator | 244 |
| 3 | JP2002321323A | Polyolefin micro-porous film | 205 |
| 4 | JP2008186721A | Porous membrane having high thermal resistance and high permeability, and its manufacturing method | 185 |
| 5 | US20070178384A1 | Separator and non-aqueous electrolyte battery | 151 |
| 6 | JP2002042813A | Positive electrode active material and non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery using the same | 143 |
| 7 | US20050064291A1 | Battery and non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery using the same | 142 |
| 8 | US6511774B1 | Separator for nonaqueous electrolyte batteries, nonaqueous electrolyte battery using it, and method for manuf… | 131 |
| 9 | US6001507A | Non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery | 122 |
| 10 | US6291107B1 | Non-aqueous electrolyte battery | 113 |
Citation counts accumulate over time and favour older filings; treat this table as a map of influential prior art, not of current competitive activity.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
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 →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 →Three read-throughs from the trend, jurisdiction and citation data that matter more than the raw counts.
Filing peaked in 2018 and had fallen back to 22 by 2022, the dataset's midpoint. That pattern — a sharp rise followed by a plateau — usually means the foundational salt-concentration and stability-window claims are already occupied, and later entrants are filing around the edges rather than staking new core ground.
The United States and the European Patent Office together account for more than two-thirds of the tracked receiving-office activity, with Japan, India, China and South Korea trailing well behind. A freedom-to-operate check that skips EP coverage is checking half the real exposure.
Every major incumbent assignee tracked in the recent-momentum view shows zero filings in the latest year, including a documented -100% year-on-year drop for one. That does not mean the technology is exhausted — publication lag alone would suppress this — but it does mean the visible activity has shifted away from the names that built the citation graph.
Fifty-five capacitor records and fifty metal-oxide compound records sit alongside the 761 H01M battery filings, indicating that non-flammable and aqueous electrolyte formulations are being claimed for hybrid and capacitor-adjacent devices, not exclusively for secondary battery cells.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to aqueous and non-flammable electrolyte systems, with the prior art for and against each one.
Filing concentrates among a small group of established battery and materials manufacturers, with co-filing pairs indicating supply-chain-driven joint development rather than pure competition.
The strongest co-assignee pairing in the dataset links two materials manufacturers on 25 shared records, well ahead of the next-strongest pair at 18. This points to foil and current-collector suppliers co-developing and co-filing electrolyte-adjacent claims rather than filing independently.
Several long-tracked assignees — spanning consumer electronics, automotive-adjacent battery makers and specialty chemical firms — show zero filings in the latest tracked year, including one with a recorded -100% year-on-year change. Their historic volume still shapes the citation graph, but current filing pressure lies elsewhere.
US and EPO receiving offices account for the large majority of tracked filings, meaning most competitive and freedom-to-operate risk in this space is decided by US and European prosecution outcomes rather than by activity in Japan, China, India or Korea.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Toshiba Corporation | 0 | — |
| Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Sony Group Corporation | 0 | — |
| Panasonic Corporation (Japan) | 0 | — |
| Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Shin-Kobe Electric Machinery Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| UACJ Corporation | 0 | — |
| Bridgestone Corporation | 0 | — |
The trend and assignee data point to a plateaued core with specific open branches — here is how to act on that.
The most detailed representative filing in this corpus claims a specific, unusual solvent family. Before filing anything adjacent to vapor-pressure or flash-point engineering, check how far that claim scope actually extends.
Run a claim comparison in Eureka →The strongest signal of active joint development in this space is a co-assignee pair, not a single top filer. Tracking pair activity forward will surface partnership shifts before they show up in headline rankings.
Track assignee relationships in Eureka →With filing concentrated in the US and at the EPO, a freedom-to-operate review limited to one office leaves real exposure unchecked.
Build a jurisdiction view in Eureka →In this corpus, non-flammable electrolyte claims are typically defined by measurable physical properties rather than by chemistry alone — vapor pressure below a stated threshold at a given temperature, a flash point raised by a set margin above the base solvent, or the complete absence of a flash point. The representative filing in this dataset, US20180277894A1, defines it this way: vapor pressure under 0.01 kPa at 20°C and a flash point at least 20°C higher than the liquid solvent alone. Claims drafted around these measurable thresholds are common because they are easier to defend against prior art than claims based solely on named ingredients.
Filing peaked at 32 records in 2018 and had fallen to 22 by the 2022 midpoint of this dataset, a pattern typical of a field where the foundational salt-concentration and electrochemical-stability-window claims were staked out early. It does not necessarily indicate declining research interest — dense early filing on core claim territory often pushes later entrants toward narrower, more specific formulations rather than broad new filings. The apparent drop toward the most recent years should also be read cautiously, since publication lags filing by roughly 18 months and recent-year counts are understated by default.
Filing concentrates among established battery and materials manufacturers, several of which appear as co-assignee pairs rather than filing solo — the strongest pairing in this dataset shares 25 records, pointing to joint development between materials suppliers. However, recent-year momentum data shows every major legacy assignee tracked at zero filings in the latest year, including one recording a -100% year-on-year change, meaning the historically dominant names are not the ones currently most active on the ground.
The IPC composition shows heavy concentration in H01M battery claims (761 of 762 records) with comparatively thinner but present activity in capacitor formulations (H01G, 55 records) and metal-oxide compounds (C01G, 50 records). That imbalance suggests under-claimed opportunity in capacitor-grade aqueous formulations and in electrolyte-separator co-design involving oxide compounds — areas technically adjacent to the core scope but not yet as densely claimed as the battery-cell space itself.
Not necessarily. The most-cited records in this corpus, including US20140170488A1 and US6447958B1, accumulated their citation counts over many years within a searched corpus, which structurally favours older filings simply because they have had more time to be cited. High citation counts are a better signal of historical influence on subsequent filings than of current commercial relevance, and should be read alongside recent-year filing momentum rather than in isolation.
Go past this page: query the whole aqueous and non-flammable electrolyte systems 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.