Commercial Explosives Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- Top-heavy field. the top 5 assignees hold 39.6% of all 2,407 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 50.4% — half the field sits with ten organisations.
- Filings have cooled. the leading assignee's own filings dropped -100% year-on-year in the latest year, and field-wide filings fell -63% from 2021 (38) to 2024 (14).
- Chemistry dominates the claim space. C06B (explosives & propellants) covers 68.6% of the 2,407 records, more than double the next largest class, F42D (blasting) at 27.5%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (38 records) with 2024 (14) — 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 2,407 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this dataset covers
This landscape draws on 2,407 published patent families filed against a search built around bulk emulsion explosives, ANFO and explosive sensitizers, cross-referenced with control terms for density, detonation velocity, water resistance, sleep time stability, gassing agents and energy output. The scope spans 2015 to the July 2026 data cut-off, capturing both the mature ANFO/emulsion chemistry base and the narrower control-engineering claims layered on top of it — density regulation, gassing timing, and stability under field storage.
Filing activity peaked in 2019 at 154 records and has trended down since, though the two most recent years are still filling in as publications lag behind filing dates by roughly 18 months. Reading the trend line therefore means anchoring on 2024 as the last complete year rather than on 2025 or 2026.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 2,407-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how those records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, the class shares below sum to well over 100% of the record total.
Filing activity, 2017–2026
Filings ran from 65 in 2017 to a peak of 154 in 2019, then declined to 3 in the partial 2026 count. The field-wide drop from 38 filings in 2021 to 14 in 2024 (-63%) is the most reliable recent signal; 2025 and 2026 figures will rise as publication catches up.
IPC subclass composition
C06B (explosives & propellants) anchors the field at 68.6% of the 2,407 records, with F42D (blasting) a distant second at 27.5% and F42B (ammunition & explosive charges) at 11.0%. Smaller classes — E21B drilling, C06C fuses and detonators, A62D chemical protection, B01F mixing, and E21C mining — each sit under 5% and mark the field's technical edges rather than its core.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,407 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Commercial Explosives Formulation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about commercial explosives formulation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited records
US9174887B1 — Method for the preparation of heavy ANFO using high density ammonium nitrate and gassed bulk emulsion
A method of preparing heavy ANFO including loading high density ammonium nitrate into a hopper; feeding the high density ammonium nitrate into a mixing chamber; during the feeding step, injecting fuel into a high density ammonium nitrate feeding pipe, thereby obtaining ANFO; loading bulk emulsion into a hopper; gassing the bulk emulsion; feeding the gassed bulk emulsion into a same mixing chamber as the ANFO; and mixing the gassed bulk emulsion and the ANFO, thereby obtaining heavy ANFO.Filed by EXSA S.A., published 2015-11-03 — a process claim covering the in-line combination of gassed emulsion with high-density ANFO in a shared mixing chamber.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20030037692A1 | Use of aluminum in perforating and stimulating a subterranean formation and other engineering applications | 236 |
| 2 | US20140072836A1 | H2o-based electrochemical hydrogen-catalyst power system | 206 |
| 3 | US20170104426A1 | Electrical power generation systems and methods regarding same | 175 |
| 4 | US4111727A | Water-in-oil blasting composition | 118 |
| 5 | WO2012138576A1 | H2o-based electrochemical hydrogen-catalyst power system | 109 |
| 6 | US7393423B2 | Use of aluminum in perforating and stimulating a subterranean formation and other engineering applications | 104 |
| 7 | US4181546A | Water resistant blasting agent and method of use | 100 |
| 8 | US4357184A | Explosive compositions based on time-stable colloidal dispersions | 95 |
| 9 | US5099763A | Method of blasting | 87 |
| 10 | US4931110A | Emulsion explosives containing a polymeric emulsifier | 87 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records by construction — treat them as a measure of influence on later filings, not 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 data signals for strategy
Three patterns stand out once volume, concentration and citation data are read together: consolidation at the top of the ranking, a chemistry-heavy claim base, and a decline in fresh filing activity from the historically dominant assignees.
Half the field sits with ten organisations
The top 5 assignees combine for 952 records (39.6% of all 2,407 in scope), and the top 10 combine for 1,213 records (50.4%). That leaves the other half of the field distributed across 90 more ranked assignees plus unranked entrants — a long tail rather than a flat distribution.
The historic leaders have gone quiet
Several of the most-filed assignees in this space show zero filings in the latest year, a -100% year-on-year move from their prior activity. Combined with the field-wide -63% drop from 2021 (38) to 2024 (14), this points to consolidation of claim space already staked out rather than active new filing.
Claim density sits in core chemistry, not equipment
C06B (explosives & propellants) covers more than two-thirds of the 2,407 records, while F42D (blasting) and F42B (ammunition & explosive charges) trail at 27.5% and 11.0%. The smaller classes — drilling, fuses/detonators, chemical protection, mixing, mining — each account for under 5% of records, suggesting formulation chemistry is the contested ground, not the surrounding equipment.
Filing strategy spans multiple offices evenly
The United States (449) and Australia (410) lead receiving offices, followed by Europe/EPO (269), Canada (248), WIPO/PCT (120) and Japan (110). The spread across common-law mining jurisdictions — US, Australia, Canada — tracks the geography of large-scale surface and underground blasting operations.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to commercial explosives formulation, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
The ranking spans 100 assignees built from patent families, with volume concentrated among a handful of long-established explosives manufacturers and a large tail of single- or few-filing entrants. Co-assignee pairings are rare — only 10 pairs recur across the dataset — and the strongest of those link a corporate assignee to a national research institute, suggesting formulation chemistry is still often developed in-house rather than through joint ventures.
A single assignee holds the largest share by a wide margin
The top-ranked assignee's 375 records sit well above fifth place at 75 and tenth place at 40, meaning the leader alone accounts for close to a third of the top-10 combined total of 1,213. That gap has held even as the leader's own recent filing activity has slowed.
Fragmentation below the leaders
Beyond the top 10 (50.4% of records), the remaining ranked assignees thin out quickly — the ranking runs to 100 companies total, most holding a small handful of families each. This is typical of a mature chemistry field where incremental formulation tweaks generate narrow, single-owner filings.
Joint filings are the exception
Only 10 co-assignee pairs recur in the dataset. The strongest pairing links a corporate assignee with a national industrial research organisation, and another links regional divisions of the same multinational — patterns consistent with sponsored research and internal cross-border filing rather than open collaboration.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Brilliant Light Power Inc | 1 | 0% |
| Dyno Nobel Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| Orica Explosives Technology Pty Ltd | 0 | — |
| Orica International Pte Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| E I du Pont de Nemours & Co | 0 | — |
| Kobe Steel Ltd | 0 | — |
| Orica Australia Pty Ltd | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with occupied core chemistry and a slowing top tier — the open questions are about where design-around room remains and how durable the leading claims actually are.
Map the white space in detail
The gassing timing, sleep-time stability and density-grading branches show thinner claim density than core emulsion/ANFO chemistry. A closer read of individual claims in those branches can show whether that is genuine open space or simply less-searched terminology.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the leading assignee's slowdown
A -100% year-on-year drop from the historically dominant filer is worth verifying against its litigation and licensing activity, not just its filing counts, before assuming the claim space is genuinely open.
Monitor assignee activity in EurekaStress-test US9174887B1 and its family
The heavy-ANFO/gassed-emulsion combination claim is a practical reference point for anyone designing a mixed-charge process; checking its full family and prosecution history clarifies how far its claims actually reach.
Review the patent family in EurekaCommon questions on commercial explosives patents
One assignee leads the ranked field with 375 records, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 75 and the tenth-place holder at 40. The top 5 assignees together account for 952 records, or 39.6% of the 2,407 records in scope, and the top 10 account for 1,213 records, or 50.4%. That leaves the remaining half of the field spread across a long tail of smaller filers, so a full freedom-to-operate check needs to look well beyond the largest names.
Filings peaked in 2019 at 154 records and have declined since, with the field-wide count falling from 38 in 2021 to 14 in 2024 — a drop of 63% over that three-year span. The most recent years (2025 and 2026) are not reliable indicators of a continued decline because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so recent activity is still being reported. 2024 is the most recent year that can be treated as a complete data point.
ANFO (ammonium nitrate/fuel oil) and bulk emulsion explosives are both covered heavily in this dataset, often within the same filings that combine the two into 'heavy ANFO' products, as seen in the representative record US9174887B1. Most of the underlying chemistry claims fall under IPC class C06B (explosives & propellants), which covers 68.6% of the 2,407 records, while the blasting-application claims sit under F42D at 27.5%. Formulation patents in this space typically focus on how the two components are gassed, mixed and density-controlled together rather than treating them as separate technologies.
C06B (explosives & propellants) is the dominant class, covering 68.6% of the 2,407 records in this dataset, and is where most sensitizer, gassing agent and density-control claims are filed. F42D (blasting) at 27.5% and F42B (ammunition & explosive charges) at 11.0% cover the application and delivery side. Smaller classes — B01F (mixing & stirring) at 3.3% and A62D (chemical protection & detox) at 3.6% — capture narrower mechanical or safety-adjacent claims that sometimes overlap with core formulation patents.
US9174887B1, assigned to EXSA S.A. and published in 2015, claims a specific process: loading high-density ammonium nitrate and gassed bulk emulsion into a shared mixing chamber via separate feed and injection steps to produce heavy ANFO. It does not claim ANFO or bulk emulsion chemistry generally — only this particular in-line combination process. Anyone using a different mixing sequence, separate mixing chambers, or a different order of gassing and combining likely sits outside its claims, though a formal freedom-to-operate review of the full claim set and family is the only way to confirm that for a specific process design.
Research Commercial Explosives Formulation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole commercial explosives formulation 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.