Block Caving Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
Block Caving and Mass Mining Patents: Draw Control, Undercutting and Cave Propagation
Two assignees account for every one of the 28 records in scope — a field this concentrated leaves almost no room for a third filer to build a position without designing around the existing raise caving claims. Filings rose to a peak of 20 records in 2021, then fell to 0 by 2024 — a documented -100% swing over that three-year span. Because 2024 is the most recent year that can be treated as complete, this is a real contraction in filing activity, not a publication-lag artefact; 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and should not yet be read as a continuation of the fall.
- 1洛萨瓦拉基鲁纳瓦拉公司96.4%
- 2BASUALTO LIRA GUILLERMO3.6%
See the full block caving and mass mining analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions on block caving patents
Who holds the most block caving patents?
In this dataset, one assignee holds 27 of the 28 records in scope, built primarily around a raise caving method family and its associated monitoring, machinery and control-system claims. A second assignee holds the remaining single record. This is an unusually concentrated field: there is no wider group of mid-tier filers, so evaluating competitive risk means studying the leader’s specific claim language rather than surveying a broad market.
Is block caving patent filing growing or shrinking?
Filing peaked at 20 records in 2021 and had dropped to 0 by 2024, a documented -100% change over that three-year span. Because 2024 is the most recent year in the dataset that can be treated as complete, this is a genuine contraction rather than a lag artefact. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still filling in, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so it is too early to call the current trajectory.
What technical areas do block caving patents actually cover?
Almost all records, 96.4% of the 28 in scope, sit within IPC subclass E21C, mining and quarrying, covering undercut sequencing, drawbell and drawpoint development, and draw control. Drilling (E21B) and blasting (F42D) classes appear on a minority of records, mostly as elements within a broader caving-method claim rather than as standalone inventions. Readers searching for fragmentation prediction or dilution entry specifically should expect to find those concepts nested inside larger system claims, not filed alone.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Block Caving and Mass Mining covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.