Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/bricks-tiles-and-building-products-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Bricks, Tiles & Building ProductsBricks, Tiles & Building Products Patents: who holds the claims and where filing is heading
- 21.8% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees combined account for 1,176 of the 5,404 records in scope, with a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants behind them.
- Filing has pulled back from its 2017 peak. Volume ran 254 in 2021 down to 113 in 2024, a 56% drop over that span; the most recent two years are still filling in as publications lag filing by about 18 months.
- Ceramics carries almost half the field. C04B (ceramics, cement & refractories) touches 45.5% of the 5,404 records, well ahead of layered products and polymer compositions.
5,404
Published Records
22%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-56%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (254 records) with 2024 (113) — 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 5,404 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This landscape maps 5,404 published records filed under construction-material claims covering bricks, tiles and building products, where the underlying documents also reference raw material composition, firing temperature, hydration reaction, compressive strength, ceramic body formation or binder composition. That combination narrows the corpus to inventions that make specific, testable claims about material performance rather than general building design.
Records span filings from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with receiving-office activity concentrated in the United States, Europe and through the WIPO/PCT route, alongside meaningful volume in Canada, Australia and India.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Bricks, Tiles & Building Products Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 5,404 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings peaked at 267 in 2017 and have declined since; the drop from 254 in 2021 to 113 in 2024 is the clearest complete-year signal in the dataset, a 56% fall. Treat 2025 and 2026 as still filling in rather than as evidence of a continued slide, since publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
C04B (ceramics, cement & refractories) appears on 45.5% of the 5,404 records, more than three times the next largest subclass. B32B (layered products & laminates), C08L and C08J (polymer compositions and processing) each sit in the 10-14% range, with structural and shaping classes (E04C, B28B, E04B) each below 9%. Because a record can carry several classes, these shares add up to well over 100% and should be read individually against the 5,404 record total, not summed.
Shares are the percentage of the 5,404 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Bricks, Tiles & Building Products Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Bricks, Tiles & Building Products Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about bricks, tiles & building products patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
A representative filing
Representative Record
Construction material compositions having high early and late strength
BASF SE
The invention covers a binder composition combining Portland cement clinker, calcium sulfate, an inorganic sulfate source with solubility above 100 g/l at 20°C, polyalcohol and/or its metal salts, a carbonate component, an unspecified additional component, and a dispersant with charge density above 0.80 μeq/g.Filed by BASF SE, published 2024-10-24.
Most-cited records in this landscape
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20120069131A1 | Reality alternate | 2,111 |
| 2 | US20170235848A1 | System and method for fuzzy concept mapping, voting ontology crowd sourcing, and technology prediction | 1,473 |
| 3 | US20140075004A1 | System And Method For Fuzzy Concept Mapping, Voting Ontology Crowd Sourcing, And Technology Prediction | 1,143 |
| 4 | US6231970B1 | Thermoplastic starch compositions incorporating a particulate filler component | 615 |
| 5 | US5320677A | Composite material and method of producing | 398 |
| 6 | US9183560B2 | Reality alternate | 364 |
| 7 | US20050281999A1 | Structural and other composite materials and methods for making same | 347 |
| 8 | US9461876B2 | System and method for fuzzy concept mapping, voting ontology crowd sourcing, and technology prediction | 249 |
| 9 | US5352288A | Low-cost, high early strength, acid-resistant pozzolanic cement | 239 |
| 10 | US5593625A | Biocomposite material and method of making | 234 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus; read them as a signal of influence, not of current importance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Bricks, Tiles & Building Products Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three read-outs from the dataset that matter more for strategy than the raw counts alone.
Concentration
21.8%
of 5,404 records held by top 5
The top of the field is real but not dominant
The five leading assignees combined hold 21.8% of all 5,404 records, and the top ten hold 30.4%. That leaves close to 70% of filings spread across a long tail of entities, which is a more open competitive picture than the leader's individual count of 597 might suggest on its own.
Based on the ranked assignee list of 100 companies.
Filing momentum
-56%
2021 to 2024 filing change
Volume has come down from its peak, not disappeared
Filings fell from 254 in 2021 to 113 in 2024, a 56% decline over the only span of fully-published years available. That is a real pullback in claim activity, not a data artefact, though the newest years in the chart will revise upward as publications catch up.
2017 remains the peak year at 267 filings.
Technology mix
45.5%
of records tagged C04B
Ceramics and cement claims dominate the class mix
Nearly half of all 5,404 records touch C04B (ceramics, cement & refractories), with layered products, polymer compositions and polymer processing forming a secondary cluster in the 10-14% range each. Structural building components and shaping classes trail well behind.
Classes overlap; shares are read individually against the full record count.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to bricks, tiles & building products patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Bricks, Tiles & Building Products Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where activity has cooled
The ranking spans 100 companies drawn from the full assignee list behind this dataset. Momentum in the most recent year is thin across the board, which is consistent with a field past its filing peak rather than one accelerating into new claim space.
Leader
597
records
A clear volume leader, wide gap to the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 597 records, well ahead of the fifth-place entity at 123 and tenth place at 83. The drop-off after the leader is steep, which suggests the leading position rests on sustained filing over years rather than a single burst.
Ranking counted in records, not families of one.
Recent activity
2
records in the latest year, top mover
Latest-year filing has slowed across named leaders
Recent-year momentum among the tracked assignees is low; most of the leading names show zero filings in the latest year, and one shows a -100% year-on-year change. This tracks with the broader 2021-2024 decline rather than signalling any single company pulling back specifically.
Latest-year counts understate true activity due to publication lag.
Collaboration
10
co-assignee pairs identified
Co-filing is limited and inventor-anchored
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pairings link a corporate assignee to a named inventor rather than two companies jointly filing. Cross-company collaboration is not a visible feature of this landscape.
Strongest pair recorded at 6 shared filings.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| United States Gypsum Co | 2 | — |
| Construction Research & Technology GmbH | 0 | — |
| James Hardie Technology Ltd | 0 | — |
| Saint-Gobain Placo SAS | 0 | — |
| Johns Manville Corp | 0 | -100% |
| Rohm and Haas Co | 0 | — |
| Henry Company LLC | 0 | — |
| Vega Building Systems LLC | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Bricks, Tiles & Building Products Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this next
The dataset points to a field with a settled leader group and a wide tail; the next steps depend on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate or identifying open claim space.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader group
With 21.8% of records held by five assignees, any new filing in ceramics or laminate claims should be checked against that group's granted claims before drafting.
Run a freedom-to-operate checkModel the white-space branches
Low-density sub-areas like recycled aggregate ceramic bodies or fire-rated laminate interlayers carry fewer blocking claims relative to the core C04B cluster.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the momentum shift
Filing has fallen 56% from 2021 to 2024; watching whether 2025-2026 publications revise that trend up is worth a recurring check rather than a one-off read.
Set up trend monitoringSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Bricks, Tiles & Building Products Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on this landscape
The dataset ranks 100 assignees by record count, and the leader holds 597 records, well ahead of the fifth-place company at 123 and tenth place at 83. That gap is steep enough to suggest the leading position comes from sustained filing over multiple years rather than one large batch. Still, the top five combined only account for 21.8% of the full 5,404-record dataset, so no single company controls the field outright.
Filing peaked at 267 records in 2017 and has trended down since, with the clearest complete-year comparison showing a drop from 254 in 2021 to 113 in 2024, a 56% decline. The most recent one to two years in any chart will look artificially low because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so treat 2025 and 2026 figures as provisional rather than confirmation of continued decline. Overall the pattern reads as a mature field past its filing peak, not one accelerating.
Ceramics, cement and refractories (IPC class C04B) touch 45.5% of the 5,404 records in scope, making it by far the largest single technology cluster. Layered products and laminates (B32B) and two polymer-related classes (C08L, C08J) each sit in the 10-14% range as a secondary cluster. Structural building components and clay/cement shaping classes trail below 9% each, indicating comparatively lighter claim density there relative to the ceramics core.
Sub-areas adjacent to the dominant C04B ceramics cluster show thinner filing density, including recycled aggregate ceramic bodies, fire-rated laminate interlayers and hydration-modifying admixture chemistry. These are not gaps in demand, they are gaps in claim coverage relative to the volume sitting in core ceramics and cement compositions. A first claim in one of these branches would need to specify a composition or process parameter narrow enough to sit outside the existing dense prior art in the core classes.
No. High filing density in a class like C04B means that claim space is occupied and crowded, not that the underlying technology has stopped developing or that further invention is impossible. It does mean that new filings in that class face a denser prior-art landscape and need narrower, more specific claims to clear it. Areas with lower filing counts are not necessarily less commercially important, they may simply be less claimed.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Bricks, Tiles & Building Products Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Bricks, Tiles & Building Products Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole bricks, tiles & building products patent landscape 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.