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/carbon-mineralization-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Carbon Capture, Utilization & StorageCarbon Mineralization Patents: Who Files, What They Claim, and Where the Field Is Still Open
- 42.0% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees hold 203 of the 483 records in scope, a share that has held even as overall filing volume grew.
- Growth is real but recent years are undercounted. Filings rose 43% from 2021 (40) to 2024 (57), the last year with a complete publication record; 2025-2026 figures will rise as later publications catch up.
- Separation and drilling classes dominate claim space. B01D (separation processes) touches 45.8% of records and E21B (wells) 31.3%, leaving cement-adjacent and water-treatment classes comparatively open.
483
Published Records
42%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+43%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (40 records) with 2024 (57) — 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 483 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What carbon mineralization patenting actually covers
Carbon mineralization converts a captured CO2 stream into stable solid carbonates, usually by reacting it with alkaline-earth silicates or industrial residues. The patent activity in this dataset sits at the intersection of gas separation chemistry, well engineering and cement/ceramics processing, which is why B01D and E21B together touch a majority of records even though neither class describes mineralization directly. Filings cluster around solvent regeneration, injection-well design and carbonate product formation rather than around a single unified mineralization claim.
That spread across adjacent classes matters for freedom-to-operate work: a filing that only searches carbonation-specific classes will miss a large share of the relevant prior art sitting in separation and drilling literature.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Carbon Mineralization 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
Data
Filing trend and technology composition
The counts below cover all 483 records identified by the search string, spanning receiving offices from the USPTO to the EPO and national offices in Canada, India and Australia.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Annual filings climbed from 15 in 2017 to a peak of 63 in 2023, with the 2021-2024 span alone showing 43% growth (40 to 57). The 2025 and 2026 figures (13 in the latest year) are undercounted because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months; they should not be read as a slowdown.
IPC subclass composition
Separation processes (B01D, 45.8%) and well drilling (E21B, 31.3%) are the two largest classes by a wide margin, followed by inorganic compounds (C01B, 21.7%) and cement/ceramics (C04B, 15.7%). Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares are each measured against the full 483-record set and do not sum to 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 483 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 Carbon Mineralization 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 Carbon Mineralization Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about carbon mineralization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited prior art in this field
Representative Filing
Process for removal of carbon dioxide from flue gases
SHELL OIL COMPANY
The filing describes capturing CO2 from flue gas via solvent extraction, regenerating the solvent by heating to release a concentrated CO2 stream, and reacting that stream with a bivalent alkaline-earth metal silicate dispersed in aqueous solution to fix the CO2 as a solid mineral carbonate.Filed by Shell Oil Company, published 2004-07-01 as US20040126293A1.
Highest-citation records
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20080031801A1 | Carbon Dioxide Capture and Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions | 271 |
| 2 | US20170341942A1 | Methods and systems for large scale carbon dioxide utilization from lake KIVU via a co2 industrial utilizatio… | 208 |
| 3 | WO2005108297A2 | Carbon dioxide capture and mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions | 182 |
| 4 | WO2007068682A1 | Enhanced oil recovery process and a process for the sequestration of carbon dioxide | 142 |
| 5 | US20040126293A1 | Process for removal of carbon dioxide from flue gases | 112 |
| 6 | US9221027B2 | Curing systems for materials that consume carbon dioxide and method of use thereof | 100 |
| 7 | US20090010827A1 | Process for Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide | 86 |
| 8 | US7947239B2 | Carbon dioxide capture and mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions | 62 |
| 9 | US20110226006A1 | Carbon Dioxide Capture and Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions | 48 |
| 10 | US20140322083A1 | Curing systems for materials that consume carbon dioxide and method of use thereof | 45 |
Citation counts are pulled from within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations; treat them as a signal of influence, not of current commercial relevance.
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 Carbon Mineralization 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 strategy
Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are read against each other: where claim density sits, how fast the field is actually moving, and how concentrated ownership is.
Concentration
42.0% / 67.5%
share held by top 5 / top 10 of 483 records
Ownership is concentrated but not closed
The top five assignees hold 42.0% of all 483 records and the top ten hold 67.5%. That leaves roughly a third of the field spread across 90 further ranked entities, which is enough room for a well-targeted entrant but not enough to assume an empty field.
Based on the 100-company ranking returned by the dataset.
Growth
+43%
filings, 2021 (40) to 2024 (57)
Momentum is upward through the last complete year
Filing volume rose steadily to a peak of 63 in 2023, and the 2021-2024 window shows 43% growth. The 2025-2026 counts look lower only because recent filings have not finished publishing; they are not evidence of a slowdown.
2024 is the most recent year treated as complete.
Claim density
45.8% / 31.3%
records touching B01D / E21B
Two classes carry most of the claim traffic
Separation processes (B01D) and well drilling (E21B) each intersect a large share of records, meaning solvent capture and injection-well mechanics are the most heavily claimed areas. Cement and ceramics-adjacent classes (C04B, B28B) see markedly less density.
Class shares are measured against all 483 records and overlap by design.
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 carbon mineralization 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 Carbon Mineralization 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 momentum is shifting
Recent-year momentum is mixed even among the leaders. Several of the top-ranked assignees show no filings or a drop in the latest year, which is consistent with publication lag rather than an actual pullback, but it means the current leaderboard understates who is active right now.
Leader
53 records
top-ranked assignee
A single leader well ahead of the field
The top assignee holds 53 records against 32 for the fifth-ranked entity and 21 for the tenth, a steep drop-off that marks a genuine leader rather than a crowded top tier.
Counted across the 100-company ranking.
Latest-year signal
-50% to -100% YoY
movement among several top assignees
Momentum looks soft, but publication lag is the likely cause
Several leading assignees, including the top-ranked filer, show sharp year-on-year drops or zero filings in the latest year. Given the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication, this reads as an artefact of timing rather than a real retreat.
Recent-year figures should be re-checked once later publications land.
Collaboration
10 pairs
co-assignee pairings identified
A small cluster of repeat co-filers
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest pairings clustered around a small group of academic and research institutions that file together repeatedly rather than as one-off collaborations.
Pairing strength is counted by shared record count.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| KOLOMA INC | 1 | -50% |
| Saudi Arabian Oil Co. (Saudi Aramco) | 0 | -100% |
| Solidia Technologies Inc. | 0 | — |
| The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York | 0 | -100% |
| Barnard College | 0 | -100% |
| Shell Internationale Research Maatschappij B.V. | 0 | — |
| University of Iceland | 0 | — |
| Halliburton Energy Services Inc. | 0 | -100% |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Carbon Mineralization 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 analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is filing strategy, freedom-to-operate review, or competitive tracking.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leaders
With 67.5% of records held by ten assignees, any new filing in solvent regeneration or injection-well design should be checked against that concentrated group before drafting claims.
Run a landscape search in EurekaTrack the under-claimed branches
Cement-curing kinetics and waste-heat integration show thinner claim density than the two dominant classes, which is where a narrower, defensible first claim is more achievable.
Explore white space in EurekaWatch for the 2025-2026 publication catch-up
Because publication lags filing by about 18 months, re-pull the trend in six to twelve months to see whether the 2023 peak is confirmed or exceeded.
Set up monitoring in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Carbon Mineralization 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 carbon mineralization patents
This dataset identifies 483 published records matching carbon mineralization search terms between 2015 and 2026. The count includes filings across major offices including the US, WIPO/PCT, Europe, Canada, India and Australia. Because a single invention can be filed in multiple jurisdictions, family-level counts (also 483 here) give a fairer picture of true invention volume than raw document counts would in a dataset with heavier multi-jurisdiction filing.
The field is led by one assignee with 53 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked holder at 32 and the tenth at 21. The top five assignees together account for 42.0% of all 483 records, and the top ten for 67.5%, so ownership is concentrated without being closed to new entrants. The remaining records are spread across roughly ninety further ranked companies and institutions, mostly oil and gas majors, cement technology firms, and university research groups.
Filing activity grew substantially through the last fully-published year, rising 43% from 40 filings in 2021 to 57 in 2024, with a peak of 63 filings in 2023. The apparent dip in 2025-2026 numbers is not a real slowdown; publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so the most recent one to two years of any patent trend are always undercounted. A reliable read on 2025-2026 activity will only be possible once those filings finish publishing.
Separation processes (IPC class B01D) appear in 45.8% of the 483 records and well drilling and injection technology (E21B) in 31.3%, making these the two most heavily claimed areas. Inorganic compound chemistry (C01B, 21.7%) and cement and ceramics processing (C04B, 15.7%) follow at meaningfully lower density. Because records often carry multiple IPC codes, these are overlapping shares of the same 483-record set, not mutually exclusive slices.
Sub-areas outside the two dominant classes show thinner claim coverage, including carbonate-cured concrete curing kinetics, industrial residue feedstock pre-treatment, and low-grade waste heat integration for solvent regeneration. These sit adjacent to the crowded separation and drilling classes but have not attracted the same filing density. A first claim in one of these branches would need to tie a specific process parameter, such as a curing temperature range or heat-source integration point, to a measurable output like carbonate conversion rate or capture efficiency.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Carbon Mineralization 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 Carbon Mineralization Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole carbon mineralization 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.