Automated Sorting of Electronic Scrap Patents: Who Leads, Gaps 2026
- A small, concentrated field. 12 published records sit behind this dataset, with one assignee holding 7 of them against a long tail of single-filing entrants.
- Sorting logic dominates the claims. 75.0% of records touch B07C postal and object sorting, and 58.3% touch G06V image recognition — the two classes anchor almost every filing.
- 2022 was the high-water mark. Filing activity peaked at 7 records in 2022, with the most recent years understated by publication lag.
What this landscape covers
This review covers patent filings at the intersection of sensor-based sorting and waste stream identification, drawing on a search string that pairs electronic scrap sorting and sensor based sorting language with technical qualifiers like x-ray transmission, hyperspectral identification and robotic picking. The corpus in scope is small: 12 published records filed between 2015 and 2026, with the data cut off at 2026-07-31.
Because the record count is low, single filings move the ranking meaningfully, and any percentage quoted below is a share of this 12-record set rather than a broad industry survey. The IPC composition shows the field spans object-sorting hardware, image recognition and, notably, several classes tied to organic waste and fertiliser processing — a signal that some of these filings originate from mixed-waste or food-waste sorting systems rather than electronics-only lines.
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
The two views below use the same 12-record denominator: one tracks filings by year, the other breaks out the IPC subclasses each record touches. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, the subclass shares sum to well over 100%.
Filing trend, 2015-2026
Filings were flat through the early years, rose to a peak of 7 records in 2022, and taper toward the most recent years — expected, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months and recent-year counts are understated.
IPC subclass composition
B07C (postal and object sorting) appears in 75.0% of the 12 records and G06V (image/video recognition) in 58.3%, confirming that sensor-driven sorting logic is the technical core of this dataset. C02F, C05F and C05G each appear in 41.7% of records, pointing to a meaningful overlap with organic waste and fertiliser processing rather than electronics-only recycling.
Shares are the percentage of the 12 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Automated Sorting of Electronic Scrap with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about automated sorting of electronic scrap and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this dataset
Item sorting apparatus and interfaces therefor (US20240326098A1)
Systems and methods are described for generating an interface that allows users to select and categorize particular waste items in real-time, for subsequent automated sorting. For example, detecting and identifying waste items, presenting them on a display, and allowing users to select items from the display and categorize them by selecting and dragging highlighted items to appropriate category affordances presented on the display.Filed by Recology Inc., published 2024-10-03 — a human-in-the-loop interface layer sitting on top of automated waste detection.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20230193177A1 | Apparatus, System and Method for Automated Food Waste Processing | 4 |
| 2 | US20240326098A1 | Item sorting apparatus and interfaces therefor | 3 |
| 3 | US20230192571A1 | Apparatus, System and Method for Automated Food Waste Processing | 2 |
| 4 | US12180127B2 | Apparatus, system and method for automated food waste processing | 1 |
Citation counts within a searched corpus favour older records and should be read as a signal of influence, not current importance.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (4 of 4 rows); 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
Three patterns stand out once the record set is broken down by assignee, class and geography.
One filer anchors the ranking
The leading assignee in the ranking holds 7 records against a fifth-place assignee with just 1, out of 8 ranked companies total. That gap, in a 12-record field, means the ranking is better read as one active program plus a scatter of individual and academic filers than as a competitive multi-company race.
Sorting hardware plus vision, not one or the other
B07C (object sorting) and G06V (image recognition) are the two most common classes by a wide margin over the rest of the set, indicating that filings in this space tend to bundle mechanical sorting claims with a vision or recognition component rather than claiming either in isolation.
US-centred filing with limited international spread
Nine of the 12 records were filed at the United States receiving office, with two routed through WIPO's PCT system and one filed in India. That distribution suggests most applicants have prioritised US protection first, with only a minority pursuing broader international coverage.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to automated sorting of electronic scrap, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and what they are missing
The ranked assignees split into one repeat filer and a set of single-record entrants, several of which are individuals or a university rather than corporations.
The dominant filer in a thin field
The top-ranked assignee accounts for 7 of the records captured in this ranking, making it the only entity with a sustained filing program in this dataset. Recent-year momentum for this assignee shows 0 filings in the latest year, consistent with the broader taper across the whole set.
Individual and academic filers round out the set
Below the leader, the ranking includes individual inventors and at least one university, each contributing a single record. This pattern is typical of an emerging niche: the core technology is being explored by researchers and small teams alongside one more established filer.
Filing is mostly solo, with a few paired inventors
Six co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, the strongest involving the leading corporate filer paired with named individual inventors, and a separate pair linking two individual inventors together. There is no evidence of cross-company joint filing in this set.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| ECOTONE RENEWABLES CO | 0 | — |
| RECOLOGY | 0 | -100% |
| Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany) | 0 | — |
| PUJERI UMA RAMACHANDRA | 0 | — |
| LEW DYLAN | 0 | — |
| HINGMIRE AMRUTA | 0 | — |
| DR VISHWANATH KARAD MIT WORLD PEACE UNIV | 0 | — |
| DARSOW ERIC | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The dataset points to a narrow, still-forming field rather than a mature one. Two directions are worth pursuing before committing engineering or legal resources.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leading filer
With one assignee holding more than half the ranked records, any commercial sorting system that combines object detection with an automated categorization interface should be checked against that filer's claim scope first.
Run a freedom-to-operate checkExplore the under-claimed sensor branches
X-ray transmission and hyperspectral identification appear in the search terms but are thinly represented in the IPC composition relative to B07C and G06V, suggesting room for claims specific to those sensing modalities applied to electronic scrap.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions
This dataset captures 12 published records matching the search criteria between 2015 and 2026. That is a small, specific slice defined by the search string used, not a count of every patent touching electronics recycling broadly. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent year in the trend is understated and should not be read as a drop-off in activity.
The ranking returned for this dataset covers 8 assignees, with the leading filer holding 7 of the 12 records and the fifth-ranked assignee holding just 1. That gap indicates one entity has built a sustained filing program while the rest of the field consists of individual inventors, an academic institution, and single-filing companies. There is no evidence in this dataset of a tight multi-company race at the top.
The IPC composition shows B07C (postal and object sorting) in 75.0% of the 12 records and G06V (image/video recognition) in 58.3%, meaning most filings combine physical sorting mechanisms with a vision or recognition system. A meaningful share also touches C02F, C05F and C05G, classes tied to water treatment and fertiliser production, suggesting some filings originate from mixed organic-waste sorting lines that overlap with electronics recycling rather than being electronics-specific.
Search terms like x-ray transmission, hyperspectral identification, output purity and throughput-per-hour appear in the query used to build this dataset, but the IPC composition shows comparatively thin direct representation of those specific sensing and performance-metric claims relative to the dominant B07C and G06V classes. That gap suggests room for claims narrowly targeting sensor modality or throughput verification as applied to electronic scrap specifically, rather than general object sorting.
The filing trend peaked at 7 records in 2022 and has since tapered, though recent years are understated due to publication lag, so it is too early to call this a declining field. With only 12 total records and one dominant filer, claim space around the core sorting-plus-vision combination may be getting occupied, but the specific sensor technologies named in the search terms remain thinly claimed. A freedom-to-operate review against the leading filer's claims is a reasonable first step before drafting.
Research Automated Sorting of Electronic Scrap in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole automated sorting of electronic scrap 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.