Ball Mill Grinding Efficiency Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- Filing is thinly spread at the top. the leading assignee holds 82 records and the ranked top 5 together account for only 7.9% of the 4,111 records in scope.
- Volumes have cooled from a 2018 peak of 155. filings fell 42% between 2021 (109) and 2024 (63), the last year publication lag lets us call complete.
- Crushing and grinding equipment claims dominate the corpus. B02C covers 30.9% of all records, more than double the next largest class, C04B at 14.6%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (109 records) with 2024 (63) — 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 4,111 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 4,111 patent records published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine ball mill or grinding-media claims with operating-parameter language such as critical speed, circulating load, mill discharge or wear rate. The search string ties equipment-side terms to process-control terms, so the corpus skews toward records that claim a mechanical configuration and specify how it behaves under operation, rather than either alone.
Coverage runs through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, but publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are undercounts still filling in rather than a real drop in activity.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 4,111 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how the underlying claims sort across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings ran from 119 in 2017 to a peak of 155 in 2018, then eased to 109 by 2021 and 63 by 2024 — a 42% decline over that three-year window. 2025 and 2026 show far lower counts (down to 10 in 2026), but that reflects publication lag rather than a real stop in filing.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
B02C (crushing, grinding and pulverising) touches 30.9% of the 4,111 records, well ahead of C04B (ceramics, cement and refractories) at 14.6% and B22F (powder metallurgy) at 10.8%. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should be read against the full record count, not against each other.
Shares are the percentage of the 4,111 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Ball Mill Grinding Efficiency with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about ball mill grinding efficiency and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA foundational claim still worth reading
GB815845A — Improvements in or relating to ball, tube, and rod mills
Filed in 1956 and granted in 1959 to Ernest Newell & Company, this record sets out a method of grinding in a ball, tube or rod mill with a wear-resistant lining: grinding media sized to occupy 30-40% of the mill volume inside the lining, mill rotation held between 70-80% of a critical speed defined by a specific formula tied to internal radius, and media locked against the lining in longitudinal recesses of a stated bottom width.One of the earliest records in this space to tie media fill ratio, critical-speed percentage and lining geometry together in a single claim set.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5145684A | Surface modified drug nanoparticles | 3,547 |
| 2 | US6228904B1 | Nanostructured fillers and carriers | 480 |
| 3 | EP0499299A2 | Surface modified drug nanoparticles | 429 |
| 4 | US5053212A | Intimate mixture of calcium and phosphate sources as precursor to hydroxyapatite | 385 |
| 5 | US20100003904A1 | High speed flat lapping platen, raised islands and abrasive beads | 381 |
| 6 | US5880382A | Double cemented carbide composites | 331 |
| 7 | US20050118939A1 | Abrasive bead coated sheet and island articles | 323 |
| 8 | US20040235406A1 | Abrasive agglomerate coated raised island articles | 300 |
| 9 | US5863308A | Low temperature bond for abrasive tools | 299 |
| 10 | US5336264A | Situ prepared calcium phosphate composition and method | 290 |
Citation counts favour older, longer-indexed records over recent filings — read them as a signal of influence within this searched set, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
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 data says about where this field stands
Three read-throughs on concentration, timing and claim geography that matter for filing and freedom-to-operate decisions.
Leadership is real but thin
The leading assignee holds 82 records against a corpus of 4,111, and the top 5 combined reach only 7.9% of all records in scope. That leaves a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants rather than a market locked up by a handful of players.
Volume has cooled from its 2018 peak
Filings peaked at 155 in 2018 and had fallen to 63 by 2024, a 42% decline from the 109 filed in 2021. That is the most recent year-over-year comparison the data supports without running into publication lag.
Crushing and grinding equipment carries the claim density
B02C alone touches 30.9% of the 4,111 records, more than double the next class. Ceramics and refractories (C04B, 14.6%) and powder metallurgy (B22F, 10.8%) are the next densest, pointing to where prior art is thickest for new mechanical filings.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to ball mill grinding efficiency, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders span mining-equipment makers, materials companies and abrasives specialists, but recent-year momentum has gone quiet across the names that led the field historically.
A single leader, no runaway gap
The top-ranked assignee holds 82 of the 4,111 records, with the fifth-place holder at 54 and the tenth at 50 — a gentle slope rather than a cliff, which is consistent with a field where mechanical and materials know-how is broadly shared.
Collaboration is limited and equipment-tool specific
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with the strongest pairing tied to Element Six's grinding-media and abrasives businesses. Most assignees in this field file solo rather than through joint entities.
Historic leaders show no latest-year filings
Several of the assignees that built the largest historical portfolios in this dataset, including established mining-equipment and materials names, show zero filings in the latest year, with one recording a full -100% year-on-year drop. That is consistent with the broader 18-month publication lag rather than necessarily a market exit.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company | 0 | — |
| F.L. Smidth & Co. | 0 | -100% |
| Alcoa Inc. | 0 | — |
| 3M Innovative Properties Co. | 0 | — |
| ELEMENT SIX GMBH | 0 | — |
| Outotec Oyj | 0 | — |
| Sandvik Mining & Construction Tools AB | 0 | -100% |
| Element Six (UK) Ltd. | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio positioning or spotting open claim space.
Check freedom-to-operate against the densest classes
B02C and C04B carry the heaviest claim density in this corpus. Any new mechanical or lining claim should be checked against both before drafting.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in EurekaTrack the quiet leaders for renewed activity
Several historically dominant assignees show zero latest-year filings. Watching for renewed filing from these names is a low-cost way to catch a strategy shift early.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaDraft into the thinner sub-areas
Wear-rate sensing, circulating-load control and overgrinding detection show thinner filing density than core equipment claims, leaving room for a well-drafted first claim.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions on ball mill grinding efficiency patents
The leading assignee in this dataset holds 82 of the 4,111 records in scope, with the fifth-ranked holder at 54 and the tenth at 50. That is a gentle slope rather than a single dominant player, and the top 5 combined account for only 7.9% of all records. Practically, that means no single company has locked up the core claim space, and freedom-to-operate work needs to check a broad set of assignees rather than one or two gatekeepers.
Filings peaked in 2018 at 155 and had fallen to 63 by 2024, a 42% decline from the 109 filed in 2021. That three-year comparison is the most recent one the data supports without running into publication lag, since records from 2025 and 2026 are still being published. Read the recent-year dip as incomplete data rather than a confirmed slowdown.
B02C, covering crushing, grinding and pulverising equipment, touches 30.9% of the 4,111 records in this corpus, making it the single densest class by a wide margin. C04B (ceramics, cement and refractories) at 14.6% and B22F (powder metallurgy) at 10.8% follow behind, reflecting how often grinding-efficiency claims are tied to specific material applications. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares overlap rather than sum to a whole.
GB815845A, granted in 1959 to Ernest Newell & Company, claims a grinding method that fixes grinding-media fill volume between 30% and 40% of the lined mill volume, sets mill speed between 70% and 80% of a defined critical speed, and locks media into longitudinal recesses in the lining. It is one of the earliest records in this dataset to tie fill ratio, critical-speed percentage and lining geometry together in one claim set. Its age likely limits its enforceability today, but its structure is a useful reference point for how these parameters have historically been claimed together.
The densest claim territory sits in core equipment classes (B02C) and material-linked classes (C04B, B22F), so new filings there face heavier prior art. Sub-areas such as media wear-rate sensing, in-mill circulating-load control and overgrinding detection show thinner density in this dataset, suggesting more room for a narrowly drafted first claim. That said, thinner filing density reflects what has been claimed and published, not a guarantee that the underlying technology is easy to develop.
Research Ball Mill Grinding Efficiency in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole ball mill grinding efficiency 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.