In-Situ Catalyst Regeneration Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
Filing growth compares 2021 (92 records) with 2024 (152) — 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 5,338 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the in-situ catalyst regeneration patent record actually shows
In-situ catalyst regeneration sits at the intersection of heterogeneous catalysis and reactor engineering: the claims cover how a fixed or moving catalyst bed is restored to activity — by burning off coke, re-dispersing metal, or reversing sulfur poisoning — without pulling the catalyst out of the vessel. The dataset spans 5,338 published records from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, drawn from a search string built around catalyst regeneration, in-situ regeneration and reactivation terms crossed against catalytic process and heterogeneous catalysis language. Because the same regeneration mechanism is frequently claimed alongside the reactor design it serves, most records carry more than one IPC subclass, and refining-adjacent classes dominate the composition.
Filing activity peaked in 2019 at 156 records and has since moved in a step pattern typical of refining-cycle capital investment, with the 2021-to-2024 span showing genuine growth rather than decline. The most recent one to two years in any patent trend are always undercounted, since publication lags filing by roughly 18 months — so the apparent tail-off after 2024 reflects that lag, not a slowdown.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 5,338-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density behind that volume.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Volume rose from 137 records in 2017 to a peak of 156 in 2019, then held in a growth band that reached 152 records in 2024 — a +65% increase over the 2021 count of 92. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under publication lag and should not be read as a falling trend.
IPC subclass composition
B01J (chemical/physical processes and catalysis) touches 52.7% of records, with C10G (hydrocarbon refining) at 43.6% and C07C (acyclic and carbocyclic compounds) at 41.0% close behind — evidence that most regeneration claims are written against a refining or petrochemical process, not as a standalone catalyst technique. Separation processes (B01D, 8.8%), general organic methods (C07B, 7.7%), inorganic compounds (C01B, 7.4%), fuels (C10L, 3.7%) and heterocyclics (C07D, 3.7%) each cover a single-digit share, meaning any of these adjacent branches carries far less filed prior art relative to the core refining classes.
Shares are the percentage of the 5,338 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Catalysis & Reactor Design — In-Situ Catalyst Regeneration Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about catalysis & reactor design — in-situ catalyst regeneration patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited and most representative records
CA1221081A — In-situ hydrocarbon conversion catalyst regeneration and sulfur decontamination
A 1987 Chevron Research and Technology Company filing describing a method for regenerating reforming catalysts containing a platinum-group component and/or rhenium component with a halogen component on a porous inorganic oxide such as alumina, without significant displacement of the rhenium component by sulfur oxides generated during regeneration. Carbon is removed by in-situ oxidation at temperatures not exceeding about 750°F, without modifying the catalytic reforming process flow circuit.Long-expired but still a useful reference point: it fixes the temperature ceiling and rhenium-protection approach that later filings had to design around or improve on.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | EP1741768A1 | Process for the manufacture of diesel range hydrocarbons | 665 |
| 2 | EP1741767A1 | Process for the manufacture of diesel range hydrocarbons | 468 |
| 3 | US20060186020A1 | Vegetable oil hydroconversion process | 415 |
| 4 | US3986556A | Hydrocarbon recovery from earth strata | 362 |
| 5 | US20070010682A1 | Process for the manufacture of diesel range hydrocarbons | 319 |
| 6 | EP1693432A1 | Vegetable oil hydroconversion process | 287 |
| 7 | US4637990A | Hollow porous microspheres as substrates and containers for catalysts and method of making same | 258 |
| 8 | WO1998000413A1 | Process for the direct oxidation of olefins to olefin oxides | 221 |
| 9 | US4547616A | Conversion of oxygenates to lower olefins in a turbulent fluidized catalyst bed | 215 |
| 10 | US4384948A | Single unit RCC | 206 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records that have had more years to accumulate citations — read them as a signal of influence on later filings, not as a measure of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; 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 filing strategy
Three read-throughs of the dataset that matter more for a filing decision than the raw counts alone.
The top of the field is concentrated, the rest is a long tail
Five assignees hold roughly a quarter of all records, and the ranked list of 100 companies stretches well past that with many single- or few-filing entrants. That combination — a concentrated top plus a long tail — usually means the core reactivation mechanisms are claimed by incumbents while process-specific variants remain open to newer entrants.
Growth is real, not a cut-off artefact
The rise from 92 records in 2021 to 152 in 2024 predates the publication lag window, so it reflects genuine filing activity rather than an incomplete count. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as provisional until later data cuts fill them in.
Separation and heterocyclic routes are thinly claimed
Against B01J's 52.7% and C10G's 43.6%, the separation-process class (B01D) and heterocyclic-compound class (C07D) each sit under 10% of records. That gap is where regeneration methods tied to non-refining feedstocks or integrated separation steps have far less filed prior art to design around.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to catalysis & reactor design — in-situ catalyst regeneration patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next questions rather than a single conclusion — each one is easier to run with a working search tool than by re-reading tables.
Check whether the leader's core claims actually cover your process
A 375-record leader position does not mean every reactivation method is blocked; claim scope in reforming-specific patents like the representative CA1221081A record is often narrower than the filing count suggests.
Explore claim scope in Eureka →Watch the momentum shift before committing R&D spend
Several historically large filers show zero or sharply negative year-over-year activity; confirming whether that is a real pullback or a publication-lag artefact changes how a freedom-to-operate assessment should be weighted.
Track assignee momentum in Eureka →Draft around the thin classes before the gap closes
B01D, C07D and C01B all sit under 10% of records; a first claim written now in one of these branches has meaningfully less prior art to clear than one filed against B01J or C10G.
Search white space in Eureka →Common questions about in-situ catalyst regeneration patents
In-situ catalyst regeneration covers methods that restore a catalyst's activity while it remains inside the reactor vessel, rather than being removed for offsite reprocessing. Typical mechanisms include burning off carbon or coke deposits, re-dispersing agglomerated metal, or reversing sulfur-driven poisoning, often under controlled temperature limits to avoid damaging the catalyst support. In this dataset, most such claims are written against a specific reactor or refining process rather than as a standalone chemistry, which is why hydrocarbon-refining classes like C10G appear alongside the core catalysis class B01J in the majority of records.
The ranked list of 100 assignees shows a clear leader with 375 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked company at 197 and the tenth at 104. The top five assignees combined hold 25.8% of the full 5,338-record dataset, but the ranking extends to 100 companies with a long tail of firms holding far fewer filings each. This concentration-plus-tail pattern suggests the foundational reactivation techniques are held by a small group of refining and licensing-technology companies, while process-specific applications remain more distributed.
Filing activity grew 65% from 92 records in 2021 to 152 in 2024, the last year the dataset treats as complete. Volumes for 2025 and 2026 appear lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than an actual decline — recent years always look thinner in any patent dataset until later data cuts fill them in. Based on the 2021-2024 trend, the field was still expanding heading into the most recent complete year.
The IPC composition shows heavy concentration in B01J (52.7% of records), C10G (43.6%) and C07C (41.0%), all core catalysis and refining classes. Separation-process claims (B01D, 8.8%), general organic chemistry methods (C07B, 7.7%), inorganic chemistries (C01B, 7.4%), fuel applications (C10L, 3.7%) and heterocyclic compounds (C07D, 3.7%) each carry a single-digit share of the dataset. Those thinner classes represent branches where fewer regeneration methods have been claimed, giving a new filer more room to establish a first-claim position.
CA1221081A, filed by Chevron Research and Technology Company and dated 1987, claims a method for regenerating platinum-group and rhenium-containing reforming catalysts by in-situ oxidation below about 750°F while protecting the rhenium component from sulfur oxide displacement. As a 1987 filing its original term has long expired, so it no longer blocks anyone directly, but its temperature ceiling and rhenium-protection approach remain a reference baseline that later, still-active filings had to differentiate from or improve upon. Anyone reviewing freedom-to-operate in reforming-catalyst regeneration should treat it as prior art context rather than a live barrier.
Research Catalysis & Reactor Design — In-Situ Catalyst Regeneration Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole catalysis & reactor design — in-situ catalyst regeneration 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.