Carbon Mineralization Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- One leader, thin field. the top-ranked assignee holds 7 of 25 records in scope, and the top 5 together account for 96.0% of all filings.
- Filing peaked in 2024. 17 records published that year against a near-empty 2017, though the 2025-2026 count is understated by publication lag.
- Separation and inorganic chemistry dominate the claims. B01D appears on 56.0% of records and C01B on 36.0%, while conveying and polymer-additive classes each sit under 15%.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 25 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Carbon mineralization converts CO2 into stable solid carbonates by reacting it with reactive silicate or alkaline-earth minerals, either in engineered concrete and cement products or by injecting it into basalt and similar rock formations underground. This landscape draws on 25 published records filed between 2015 and 2026 that specifically address dissolution-before-injection behaviour, reaction-rate control, water demand, porosity clogging, mineral-verification methods and site screening — the operational problems that separate a lab-scale mineralization claim from a bankable storage project.
The scope is narrow by design: it isolates patents that engage with the mechanics of getting CO2 to react and stay reacted, rather than the broader universe of carbon capture or generic cement chemistry. That makes the assignee concentration and the class distribution below unusually informative for anyone deciding where a new filing would actually add ground.
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
Two views of the same 25 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings were negligible before 2020 and rose to a peak of 17 records in 2024. The 2025 and 2026 figures are not a slowdown so much as an artefact of publication lag, since most jurisdictions take around 18 months to publish a filed application.
IPC subclass composition
B01D (separation processes) and C01B (non-metallic elements and inorganic compounds) between them cover most of the field, with C04B cement chemistry and B01J catalysis close behind. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, these shares are calculated against all 25 records in scope and add up to well over 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 25 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Carbon Mineralization and Basalt Storage with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about carbon mineralization and basalt storage and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
System and method for carbon mineralization (EP4663581A1)
A system for carbon mineralization comprising an underground reservoir of sedimentary rock with volcanic-ash particles and divalent-cation silicate material, sandwiched between two sedimentary layers, connected to a CO2 source through one or more injection wells with defined surface openings.Filed by Aarhus University; published 2025-12-17.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US11884602B1 | Carbon mineralization using hyaloclastite, volcanic ash or pumice pozzolan, cement and concrete using same an… | 7 |
| 2 | US11986769B1 | Carbon mineralization using hyaloclastite, volcanic ash and pumice mineral and an alkaline solution, cement a… | 6 |
| 3 | US20250083124A1 | Carbon mineralization and sequestration using carbonatable minerals, fly ash, bottom ash, slag and method of … | 2 |
| 4 | WO2025030116A1 | Pre- and post- treatment methods for producing carbon-negative supplementary cementitious materials by direct… | 1 |
| 5 | US20250042812A1 | Pre- and post-treatment methods for producing carbon-negative supplementary cementitious materials by direct … | 1 |
| 6 | US20240351001A1 | Carbon mineralization and sequestration using carbonatable minerals, and method of making and using same | 1 |
| 7 | CN116274270A | 一种利用湿法研磨高效一体化固碳的方法 | 1 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to be cited; treat this table as a signal of influence within the searched corpus, not a ranking of current technical importance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (7 of 7 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 mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the records are broken down by assignee, geography and claim class.
A thin field, not an open one
With only 6 companies in the entire ranking and the top 5 already covering 96.0% of all 25 records, this is a field where a handful of applicants have staked most of the claim space rather than one crowded by many small filers.
Activity is recent and concentrated in one year
Filings were effectively absent in 2017 and built steadily to a peak of 17 records in 2024. That single-year spike, more than a steady climb, is what drives the field's growth story so far.
US-first filing strategy with selective international coverage
The United States receives the largest single share of filings at 10, with WIPO/PCT applications at 5 and EPO at 4. Canada, Australia and Austria each register only one or two records, suggesting international coverage is still being built out rather than settled.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to carbon mineralization and basalt storage, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and what is still open
The ranked leaders and the recent-year momentum behind them point to where competitive pressure is building and where it has already gone quiet.
One applicant well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 7 of the 25 records in scope, more than double the fifth-place assignee's 1 record. That gap is the clearest signal in the ranking: this is a field defined by one applicant's sustained filing rather than broad competitive churn.
Momentum has narrowed to a single filer
Only one of the six ranked assignees, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, shows a filing in the latest year; every other ranked assignee, including Aarhus University at -100% year-over-year, shows none. That does not mean the others have exited the field, since recent filings are still working through publication lag.
A short ranking with little redundancy
With only 6 companies appearing in the entire assignee ranking, there is limited redundancy in claim coverage. A new entrant with a distinct technical angle is not fighting through dozens of overlapping filers, but through a small number of well-defined blocking positions.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation | 1 | — |
| GREENCRAFT LLC | 0 | — |
| CIUPERCA ROMEO ILARIAN | 0 | — |
| Aarhus University | 0 | -100% |
| Hubei University of Technology | 0 | — |
| ROMEO ILARIAN CIUPERCA | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The dataset points to a small set of next questions worth running before committing to a filing strategy.
Map the leader's full claim scope
With one assignee holding 7 of 25 records, understanding exactly what its granted claims cover, and where the boundaries sit, is the first step before drafting in the same space.
Explore assignee claim mapsTrack the under-claimed branches
Porosity-clogging mitigation and in-situ mineral verification show thin coverage relative to the B01D/C01B core, which is where a differentiated first claim is more likely to hold.
Run a white-space searchWatch for the 2025-2026 publication catch-up
Because publication lags filing by around 18 months, the true 2025-2026 filing volume will only become visible over the next year or two; re-checking the trend then will sharpen the momentum picture.
Set a monitoring alertCommon questions on carbon mineralization patents
This landscape identifies 25 published records filed between 2015 and 2026 that specifically address the operational mechanics of carbon mineralization and basalt storage, such as reaction rate, water demand, porosity clogging and site screening. That is a narrow, targeted count rather than every patent that mentions carbon capture or cement chemistry broadly. The true number of filings for 2025 and 2026 is understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
The assignee ranking for this dataset covers 6 companies, with the top-ranked applicant holding 7 of the 25 records in scope and the top 5 together covering 96.0% of all filings. That level of concentration means the field is currently defined by a small number of applicants rather than broad competition. Recent-year filing activity has narrowed further, with only the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation showing a filing in the latest year among the ranked assignees.
The dominant IPC classes are B01D, covering separation processes such as filtration, which appears on 56.0% of the 25 records, and C01B, covering non-metallic elements and inorganic compounds, at 36.0%. C04B cement and refractory chemistry and B01J catalysis processes follow behind. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these percentages overlap and add up to more than 100% of the record total.
Based on this dataset, sub-areas like porosity-clogging mitigation additives, in-situ mineral-verification sensing, water-demand reduction for injection fluids and low-temperature reaction-rate control show comparatively thin coverage relative to the dense B01D and C01B core. That thinness reflects fewer claims currently occupying that space, not that the technology is unproven. A first claim drafted around one of these specific mechanisms is less likely to run into the leading assignee's existing filings.
The filing trend in this dataset shows growth from near zero in 2017 to a peak of 17 records in 2024, concentrated within a short window rather than a steady multi-year climb. A formal growth rate is not computable here because fewer than four complete years of data are available once publication lag is accounted for. The 2025 and 2026 counts should be read as provisional, since applications filed in those years may not yet have published.
Research Carbon Mineralization and Basalt Storage in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole carbon mineralization and basalt storage 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.