Catalyst Stability & Deactivation Patent Landscape 2026
Johnson Matthey leads a moderately concentrated field, holding the largest share among the top hundred filers in catalyst stability and deactivation. Activity peaked in 2017 and has eased since, though the 2024–2026 window remains subject to publication lag and does not yet reflect the full volume of recent filings.
Johnson Matthey leads a field with a clear tier gap below the top two
Johnson Matthey PLC ranks first with 61 patent records among the hundred largest filers, more than double the second-ranked Lummus Technology at 30 patent records — a decisive positional advantage in catalyst stability and deactivation.
The top five filers collectively account for 29% of the hundred largest filers’ combined total, indicating moderate rather than extreme concentration. A meaningful tier gap separates Johnson Matthey and Lummus Technology from the cluster of specialty-chemical and process-technology players ranked third through tenth.
| # | Applicant | Patent records | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Johnson Matthey PLC | 61 | |
| 2 | Lummus Technology Inc | 30 | |
| 3 | Dow Global Technologies LLC | 22 | |
| 4 | Furukawa Electric Co Ltd | 19 | |
| 5 | BASF Mobile Emissions Catalysts LLC | 18 | |
| 6 | Monsanto Technology LLC | 16 | |
| 7 | COUNCIL OF SCI & IND RES | 16 | |
| 8 | Avantium Knowledge Centre BV | 14 | |
| 9 | SABIC Global Technologies BV | 13 | |
| 10 | UMICORE AG & CO KG | 12 |
| # | Applicant | Patent records | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO) | 12 | |
| 12 | Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology | 9 | |
| 13 | Institute of Chemical Technology | 9 | |
| 14 | ROHM & HAAS CO | 9 | |
| 15 | CompactGTL | 8 | |
| 16 | Tufts University | 8 | |
| 17 | ABB Lummus Global Inc | 7 | |
| 18 | ONGC Energy Centre Trust | 7 | |
| 19 | Xiangtan University | 7 | |
| 20 | Yale University | 6 |
Johnson Matthey’s lead, combined with Lummus Technology’s process-chemistry focus and Dow Global Technologies’ materials breadth, suggests that established specialty-catalyst and refining-technology companies have built durable defensive positions, leaving narrower entry windows for new challengers without differentiated formulation or support-material know-how.
Filing counts for 2024–2026 are subject to publication lag and will rise as applications publish; the apparent recent decline should not be taken as a reliable measure of current R&D activity. Longer-window growth, applicant concentration, and technology-route coverage are therefore more reliable signals than the latest-year bar alone.
A 2017 peak followed by moderated volume, with catalysis fundamentals dominating the technology mix
Two charts together characterise both the pace of filing activity over time and the spread of technical subject matter within catalyst stability and deactivation. Read them together to judge where the field is maturing and where adjacent branches remain relatively sparse.
Annual filing trend
Filings peaked at 62 patent records in 2017 and have trended lower since, with a secondary rise to 44 in 2022 before settling back. Counts from 2024 onward are incomplete due to standard publication lag and should not be read as a sustained decline.
↗ Hover for values · click a bar to ask EurekaTechnology composition
B01J (Chemical/physical processes and catalysis) dominates the IPC mix by a wide margin, reflecting the core subject matter. C07C (acyclic and carbocyclic compounds) and B01D (separation processes) rank second and third, pointing to strong links between catalyst performance and downstream product selectivity as well as regeneration and filtration processes. Branches such as C25B (electrolytic production), H01M (fuel cells), and B82Y (nanotechnology) appear at comparatively low counts, signalling the relative immaturity of electrocatalysis and nano-engineered catalyst stability work in this corpus.
↗ Hover for values · click a bar to ask EurekaHighly cited patent families surfaced by the query
Citation-heavy patent families returned by the query. Use this section as citation context, not as a curated list of the most topic-specific patents.
Methods of mitigating catalyst deactivation
A catalyst structure is disclosed. The catalyst structure comprises a catalytic material and a metal material on the catalytic material, where the metal material comprises particle sizes in a range from about 1.5 nanometers to about 3 nanometers. An interface between the metal material and the catalytic material comprises bonds between the metal material… (excerpt from the patent abstract)
| # | Patent | Citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alcohols production by hydrogenation of carboxylic… | 334 |
| 2 | Catalyst for the production of alcohols by hydroge… | 245 |
| 3 | Alcohols production by hydrogenation of carboxylic… | 224 |
| 4 | Novel zeolite composite, method for making and cat… | 216 |
| 5 | High performance thermally stable catalyst | 113 |
| 6 | Hydroconversion process employing catalyst with sp… | 104 |
| 7 | Catalytic material and method of production thereof | 84 |
| 8 | Mixtures and catalyst systems including transition… | 82 |
Ranked by total forward citations. Citation counts favour older and broadly cited patent families, and broad or adjacent patents may appear when they match the search scope. Treat this section as citation context, not as a curated list of the most topic-specific patents. Some patent titles may be shown in their original, non-English language where an accurate translation could not be guaranteed.
What the patent structure means for R&D investment decisions
Four structural reads — maturity, concentration, collaboration, and geography — each carry a distinct implication for where new R&D investment is likely to face crowded prior art versus open space.
Field in decline from a 2017 peak
The lifecycle evidence classifies catalyst stability and deactivation as in decline, with annual filings easing back from the 2017 peak of 62 patent records. This signals a maturing core technology base where incremental formulation improvements may face strong prior-art headwinds. R&D differentiation is most viable in adjacent branches — particularly electrocatalysis and nano-structured supports — where prior art is comparatively sparse.
Lifecycle: DeclineModerate concentration with a clear leader gap
The top five filers hold 29% of the hundred largest filers’ combined total, and Johnson Matthey’s 61 patent records are more than double Lummus Technology’s 30 — a gap that reflects years of sustained investment in precious-metal and base-metal catalyst formulations. Below the top two, patent counts fall quickly, leaving the mid-tier relatively open to targeted filing strategies in specific process chemistries such as hydrocarbon refining or exhaust aftertreatment.
Moderate concentrationBASF entities and Dow–Rohm & Haas pairs dominate co-filing activity
The most active co-filing pairs are the BASF AG / BASF Corporation pairing (9 joint records) and Dow Global Technologies / Rohm & Haas (9 joint records), with Dow also collaborating with the University of Illinois (3 records) and Union Carbide (1 record). These collaborations follow the pattern of parent–subsidiary coordination and strategic acquisition integration rather than open cross-industry consortia, suggesting the ecosystem remains relatively closed to new entrants seeking collaborative access.
Closed ecosystemUS-centric filing with selective EPO and PCT coverage
The United States is the primary filing jurisdiction, followed by Europe (EPO) and WIPO (PCT). India ranks fourth, reflecting both the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research’s domestic filings and the strategic interest of refining-focused applicants in the Indian market. China and Japan appear at comparatively low counts, which may represent a genuine gap in Asian prior art for certain catalyst stability formulations or a filing strategy focused on Western markets.
US-led, India notableGo beyond the landscape: Eureka’s TRIZ Solution agent breaks down an R&D problem and returns patented concept solutions, each with a technical approach and cited patent & literature evidence.
| Applicant | Collaborator | Co-filings |
|---|---|---|
| BASF SE | BASF Corporation | 9 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | Rohm & Haas Company | 9 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | University of Illinois Board of Trustees | 3 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Technology LLC | 1 |
Co-filing pairs, ranked by the number of jointly-filed patent families.
Johnson Matthey and Lummus Technology lead distinct technical routes
The two top-ranked applicants differ meaningfully in their technology emphasis: Johnson Matthey focuses on catalyst physical form and precious/base-metal active phases, while Lummus Technology anchors in process chemistry for hydrocarbon conversion. Both show momentum shifts worth tracking.
Johnson Matthey PLC
Johnson Matthey holds 61 patent records, the highest count in the corpus, with its deepest IPC coverage in B01J 35 (catalyst physical form and characterisation) and B01J 23 (metal-based catalysts), as well as B01D 53 (gas separation and purification). Its momentum is classified as a new entrant in the most recent filing window — a counterintuitive signal that likely reflects a gap in its filing cadence rather than a genuine new market entry, given its dominant historical position.
families: 61Lummus Technology Inc
Lummus Technology holds 30 patent records and focuses on B01J 23 (metal-based catalysts), C07C 2 (acyclic hydrocarbon conversion), and B01J 21 (non-metal-oxide catalysts), reflecting its process-licensing orientation in olefin and refining chemistries. Its recent filing trend is down 42% versus the prior three-year period, consistent with the broader field-level decline from the 2017 peak.
families: 30| Applicant | Recent (3 yrs) | Trend |
|---|---|---|
| Johnson Matthey PLC | 4 | ▲ new entrant |
| BASF SE | 1 | ▲ new entrant |
| Lummus Technology Inc | 7 | ▼ -42% |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | 2 | ▼ -80% |
| Furukawa Electric Co Ltd | 11 | ▲ new entrant |
| Council of Scientific and Industrial Research | 3 | ▲ new entrant |
Under-served branches adjacent to the dominant catalysis core
Several IPC branches appear at lower relative counts within this corpus. The following two are worth examining for their technical proximity to catalyst stability challenges and the comparatively limited prior art they present.
C25B · Electrolytic production of compounds
C25B appears at only 12 patent records in this corpus, a small share relative to the dominant B01J cluster. Electrocatalyst stability and deactivation — covering electrode poisoning, dissolution of precious-metal sites, and membrane degradation in electrolysers — is technically closely related to the heterogeneous catalyst stability problems at the corpus core. As electrolytic hydrogen production scales, this branch represents a plausible area where process-chemistry and catalyst-formulation know-how from the established leaders could be extended, though the sparse prior art here may also reflect a true early-stage gap rather than a validated commercial window.
Search this in Eureka →H01M · Batteries, cells & fuel cells
H01M appears at 10 patent records, reflecting limited overlap between the fuel-cell catalyst stability problem set and the broader catalyst deactivation corpus. Platinum-group-metal degradation in proton-exchange-membrane fuel cells shares fundamental mechanisms — sintering, poisoning, support corrosion — with the heterogeneous catalysis work that dominates this corpus. The low count suggests that fuel-cell catalyst durability is either addressed in separate, dedicated patent families or remains an under-filed area, either of which could present an entry path for applicants with existing B01J and B01D positions.
Search this in Eureka →Frequently asked questions
Johnson Matthey PLC leads with 61 patent records among the hundred largest filers, more than double the second-ranked Lummus Technology Inc at 30 patent records. Its filings are concentrated in catalyst physical form (B01J 35), metal-based catalysts (B01J 23), and gas-separation processes (B01D 53).
Filings peaked at 62 patent records in 2017 and have trended lower since, with a secondary rise to 44 in 2022. The lifecycle classification is Decline, reflecting that annual volumes have eased from the 2017 peak. Counts for 2024–2026 are incomplete due to publication lag.
The United States is the primary filing jurisdiction, followed by Europe (EPO) and WIPO (PCT). India ranks fourth, reflecting domestic filings from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and commercial interest in refining markets. China and Japan appear at comparatively low counts in this corpus.
B01J (chemical/physical processes and catalysis) is by far the dominant branch. C07C (acyclic and carbocyclic compounds) and B01D (separation processes) rank second and third, connecting catalyst performance to downstream product selectivity and regeneration processes.
The most active co-filing pairs are BASF AG with BASF Corporation (9 joint records) and Dow Global Technologies with Rohm & Haas (9 joint records). Dow also co-filed with the University of Illinois (3 records). These pairings reflect parent-subsidiary coordination and acquisition integration rather than open cross-industry consortia.
C25B (electrolytic production of compounds) and H01M (batteries, cells, and fuel cells) each appear at low counts — 12 and 10 patent records respectively — relative to the dominant B01J cluster. Both share fundamental deactivation mechanisms with the heterogeneous catalysis core and may represent areas where applicants with existing positions can extend their portfolios.
Built on Patsnap Open Platform
This report’s underlying patent dataset — filings, assignees, technology clusters — is open for developers via MCP and REST API. Free to start, 10,000 credits, no credit card required.
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.