Continuous Catalyst Regeneration Patents: Top Filers & Trends 2026
- Concentrated at the top. five assignees hold 67.8% of the 233 records in scope, and ten hold 83.3% — this is a field with a short list of gatekeepers, not a fragmented one.
- Filing has cooled since its 2018 peak. from 3 filings in 2021 to 1 in 2024, a 67% drop over that span, though 2025-2026 counts are still filling in as publications lag behind filing.
- Claims cluster almost entirely in refining chemistry. 89.7% of records sit in C10G and 54.1% in B01J, leaving control-systems and analytics classes barely touched.
Filing growth compares 2021 (3 records) with 2024 (1) — 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 233 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this technology covers
Continuous catalyst regeneration (CCR) reforming keeps a platinum or platinum-rhenium catalyst moving between reaction and regeneration zones so refiners can hold aromatics yield up without shutting the unit down to re-coke or re-chlorinate the catalyst bed. The patent activity tracked here centres on the mechanics of that cycle: catalyst circulation between reactors, chloride balance control to keep acid function stable, coke burn control during regeneration, and the metallurgy of the platinum-rhenium catalyst itself. It is a mature refining discipline, so most of the inventive activity is incremental — a new reactor internals geometry, a revised burn-zone temperature profile, a catalyst formulation tweak — rather than a new reaction chemistry.
That maturity shows up directly in the filing trend: activity peaked in 2018 and has since declined, and the assignee ranking is dominated by the handful of firms that built and still operate the largest reforming licensing businesses.
Filing trends and technology composition
The 233 records in scope span 2015 through the partial-year 2026 cut-off, classified across eight IPC subclasses and filed through six major receiving offices.
A peak in 2018, then a steady pull-back
Filings ran from 7 in 2017 to a peak of 12 in 2018, and by the most recent complete comparison window fell from 3 in 2021 to 1 in 2024 — a 67% decline. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as understated: publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so recent-year counts will keep rising as more applications publish.
Refining and catalysis dominate the classification mix
C10G (hydrocarbon oils and refining) appears on 89.7% of the 233 records and B01J (catalytic processes) on 54.1% — expected for a reforming-specific search. The long tail is thin: C07C, C07B, H01M, C01B, G01N and G05B each sit at 9.0% or below, meaning downstream chemistry, analytics and control-system claims are comparatively rare inside this corpus.
Shares are the percentage of the 233 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Continuous Catalyst Regeneration Reforming with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about continuous catalyst regeneration reforming and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this corpus
US4440628A — Catalytic reforming process (Exxon Research and Engineering, 1984)
A series of reforming reactors is loaded with catalyst of graded rhenium content: rearward zones carry a high-rhenium platinum-rhenium catalyst, while the forwardmost zone carries platinum or a low-rhenium platinum-rhenium catalyst. The patent specifies that a substantial share of the rearward-most reactors — from roughly 40 to 90 percent, potentially all of them — should run this high-rhenium loading.Filed 1984; still one of the most-cited records in this dataset, underscoring how much current CCR practice traces back to graded-catalyst reactor design.
View full filing| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6605566B2 | Supported bimetallic catalyst with a strong interaction between a group VIII metal and tin, and its use in a … | 105 |
| 2 | US5935415A | Continuous catalytic reforming process with dual zones | 87 |
| 3 | US5885439A | Catalytic reforming process with multiple zones | 60 |
| 4 | US5358631A | Dehydrocyclization or catalytic reforming using sulfur tolerant zeolite catalyst | 49 |
| 5 | US5565090A | Modified riser-reactor reforming process | 46 |
| 6 | US6419820B1 | Catalytic reforming process employing a selective bifunctional multigradient multimetallic catalyst | 44 |
| 7 | US5169813A | Dehydrocyclization or catalytic reforming sulfur tolerant zeolite catalyst | 40 |
| 8 | US20190101907A1 | Remote Monitoring of Chloride Treaters Using a Process Simulator Based Chloride Distribution Estimate | 37 |
| 9 | US5562817A | Reforming using a Pt/Re catalyst | 37 |
| 10 | US4440626A | Catalytic reforming process | 37 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — read them as a signal of foundational influence, 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 numbers mean for a filing or freedom-to-operate decision
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the classification mix are read together.
A small group of licensors controls most of the claim space
Five assignees account for 158 of the 233 records in scope, and ten account for 194. Freedom-to-operate work in CCR reforming realistically means clearing a short list of legacy refining and licensing companies, not a broad field of independent filers.
Filing has slowed from its 2018 peak
Activity peaked at 12 filings in 2018 and had fallen to 1 by 2024, a 67% drop across the 2021-2024 window. That reads as a mature, claim-saturated core rather than a growth phase — new entrants are more likely to find room at the edges than in core catalyst-loading claims.
Almost all activity sits inside core refining chemistry
C10G and B01J together dominate the corpus, while control-systems class G05B and analytics class G01N each sit at only 1.3% of records. Digital monitoring and control-loop claims around chloride balance or coke burn are technically adjacent but sparsely claimed in this dataset.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to continuous catalyst regeneration reforming, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where the edges are open
The ranked leader holds 98 records, more than the next four combined, and momentum data shows the largest legacy filers posting zero filings in the latest year — consistent with a field where the core claim space was staked out years ago.
One assignee dominates the ranking outright
The top-ranked assignee holds 98 of the 233 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 12 and tenth place at 5. That gap defines the field: licensing incumbents, not challengers, set the terms of core catalyst and reactor-zone claims.
A steep drop-off after the top ten
Combined, the top ten hold 83.3% of all 233 records, leaving the remaining 32 ranked assignees to share the balance. Most of that tail consists of single- or few-filing entrants working narrow variations on catalyst formulation or reactor internals.
Legacy leaders have gone quiet in the most recent year
Several of the largest historical filers show zero filings in the latest year, including the top-ranked assignee. Read this alongside the publication lag: some of that may still fill in, but combined with the 2021-2024 decline it points to a slower filing cadence from the incumbents rather than continued aggressive claiming.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| UOP LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Chevron Chemical Company LLC | 0 | — |
| ExxonMobil Technology & Engineering Co. | 0 | — |
| Chevron Research & Technology Co. | 0 | — |
| IFP Energies Nouvelles | 0 | — |
| Mobil Oil Corp. | 0 | — |
| Amoco Corp. | 0 | — |
| Saudi Arabian Oil Co. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The ranking and trend tables above answer who and how much. Two follow-up questions matter more for a filing decision: whether a specific claim is already blocked, and whether the under-claimed branches identified here actually hold up on closer reading.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the top holders
With 67.8% of records held by five assignees, a targeted FTO search against just those portfolios will clear most of the risk before a broader search is needed.
Check claims in Eureka →Pressure-test the white-space branches
Control-systems and analytics classes sit under 1.5% of records each — confirm that gap is real for your specific claim language, not an artefact of the search string.
Explore white space in Eureka →Common questions about CCR reforming patents
The assignee ranking for this corpus covers 42 companies, and it is heavily front-loaded: the top-ranked assignee alone holds 98 of the 233 records in scope, while the top five combined hold 158 records, or 67.8% of the field. These are largely long-established refining technology licensors rather than recent entrants. Anyone doing competitive tracking here should watch the top handful closely, since the remaining 32 ranked assignees each hold comparatively few records.
No — filings peaked at 12 in 2018 and have declined since, falling from 3 in 2021 to 1 in 2024, a 67% drop over that span. That said, 2025 and 2026 counts in any dataset like this are understated because patent publication typically lags the filing date by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years should not be read as the true current filing rate. The multi-year trend through 2024 is the more reliable read, and it points to a mature, slowing field.
US4440628A, filed by Exxon Research and Engineering in 1984, claims a reforming process using graded rhenium content across a series of reactors — high-rhenium platinum-rhenium catalyst in the rearward zones and lower-rhenium or plain platinum catalyst forward, with a specified share of rearward reactors carrying the high-rhenium load. It remains one of the most heavily cited records in this corpus, which signals that much of the field's later catalyst-loading practice built directly on this design. It is old enough that its own claims have likely expired, but the citation pattern shows its influence on how later, still-active patents frame their claims.
Classification data shows the corpus concentrated almost entirely in C10G (89.7% of 233 records) and B01J (54.1%), while control-systems class G05B and analytics class G01N sit at just 1.3% each. That gap suggests real-time chloride balance sensing, coke burn control algorithms and reactor pressure-drop diagnostics are comparatively under-claimed relative to the core catalyst and reactor chemistry. Anyone considering a digital-monitoring or control-loop angle on CCR reforming should verify this gap against their specific claim language before assuming it is open, since a thin IPC count does not guarantee an absence of blocking prior art.
By the figures in this dataset, ownership is quite concentrated: the top five assignees hold 67.8% of the 233 records in scope and the top ten hold 83.3%. That level of concentration is consistent with a technology area built around a small number of long-running catalyst and reforming process licensing businesses, rather than one with many independent innovators. For a new entrant, this means the practical FTO exercise is narrower than the total assignee count of 42 might suggest — most of the risk sits with a handful of portfolios.
Research Continuous Catalyst Regeneration Reforming in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole continuous catalyst regeneration reforming 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.