The assignee ranking for this dataset covers 10 companies, with one clear leader holding 9 of the ranked records. The remaining positions in the ranking are thin: fifth place and tenth place each hold just 1 record, indicating a field of mostly single-filing entrants rather than several competing repeat filers. Because this ranking reflects a narrowly filtered search on specific claim language, it should not be read as a complete picture of every company active in calcium silicate insulation broadly.

Filing activity in this dataset peaked in 2017 at 2 records in a single year and has not exceeded that level since, with the 2022 midpoint sitting at just 1 record. That pattern reads as flat or declining rather than growing. Keep in mind that publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent year shown will always look thinner than it eventually turns out to be once later filings publish.

Secondary IPC subclasses in this dataset each cover only a small share of the 18 records: F16L pipe fittings, C01B inorganic compounds, C09K materials for miscellaneous applications and B28C mortar mixing each sit at 11.1% of records, while B32B laminates, C03C glass compositions and G01N testing each sit at 5.6%. That thin coverage, against a core C04B classification present in all 18 records, marks these branches as comparatively under-claimed and worth a closer freedom-to-operate check before filing there.

US20170260097A1 claims a calcium silicate insulation product built on a calcium silicate hydrate matrix that is predominantly but not substantially all xonotlite — specifically 51-90 weight percent xonotlite alongside 10-49 weight percent tobermorite — combined with wollastonite and optionally lime, silica fines and reinforcing carbon fibers. It also covers a production method: blending dry solids with water into a slurry, filter-pressing that slurry into a pressed shape, and curing under steam pressure only until the target xonotlite-to-tobermorite ratio is reached. Anyone formulating a calcium silicate board in that same compositional and processing window should review this filing's claim scope directly rather than relying on the abstract alone.

This dataset shows a hybrid pattern: one company holds 9 of the records in a ranking of 10 companies, while the rest of the ranked field sits at 1 record each at both fifth and tenth position. Co-assignee data reinforces this — only 4 co-assignee pairs appear across the whole dataset, each involving smaller institutions or named individual inventors rather than large industrial joint ventures. So it is concentrated at the very top but thin and fragmented everywhere else, rather than evenly spread across a competitive mid-tier.