Crusher Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 39.1% of all 110 records sit with just five assignees, so the field is concentrated at the top but not dominated by a single filer.
- Filing peaked in 2023 at 13 records and the midpoint year (2022, 7 records) shows growth has gone flat or is declining since — not accelerating.
- Nearly every record classifies under B02C with only scattered secondary classes (F16C, C10J, E21D among them), meaning almost all technical novelty is being claimed inside one crushing-machinery subclass.
What the crusher patent record shows
Jaw, cone and impact crushers form a mature mechanical category, and the patent record reflects that: 110 published records from 2015 through the current filing window, most of them classified under a single IPC subclass, B02C — crushing, grinding and pulverising. Filing activity rose through the late 2010s, peaked in 2023 at 13 records, and has since gone flat or declined, with the midpoint year (2022) sitting at 7. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent year in this dataset understates actual filing activity and should not be read as a real drop-off.
Ownership is moderately concentrated: the ranked leader holds 14 records, and the top five assignees combined account for 39.1% of all 110 records in scope. That leaves a long tail of single- and low-filing entrants competing for the remaining claim space, largely inside mechanical refinements to jaw geometry, liner wear and throughput rather than new subclasses.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 110 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how those records distribute across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Volume climbed from a single record in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2023, then eased back toward the 2022 midpoint level of 7. The 2026 figure is partial because the data cut-off is 2026-07-31 and recent filings have not yet published.
IPC subclass distribution
B02C covers all 110 records in scope — every filing in this dataset touches crushing, grinding or pulverising machinery directly. Secondary classes appear only in single-digit counts (F16C at 2 records; B23B, B23P, C10J, D06F, E21D and F15B at 1 record each), showing that inventive activity here is concentrated inside the core crushing mechanism rather than spilling into adjacent mechanical or process domains.
Shares are the percentage of the 110 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Crushers (Jaw, Cone and Impact) with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about crushers (jaw, cone and impact) and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative recent filing
Compact hydraulic pinned jaw crusher system with high size reduction ratio (AU2022215159B2)
Discloses a compact crusher system with two linearly movable, opposing jaws forming a gap that defines the active crushing area. A driving unit pushes the jaws together to compress and crush material by generating local stresses; a flat screen element with multiple openings sits in the crushing area below the jaws to pass material once it is smaller than the opening size.Abstract text is drawn directly from the published filing.
View full filing| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6213418B1 | Variable throw eccentric cone crusher and method for operating the same | 53 |
| 2 | US6123279A | Rock crusher having crushing-enhancing inserts, method for its production, and method for its use | 45 |
| 3 | US5967431A | Rock crusher having crushing-enhancing inserts, method for its production, and method for its use | 37 |
| 4 | US4373678A | Rotary impact crusher having a continuous rotary circumference | 35 |
| 5 | US4073446A | Inertia cone crusher | 34 |
| 6 | US6405953B1 | Impeller shoe for an impact crusher | 31 |
| 7 | JP1991052651A | Liner for cone crusher | 25 |
| 8 | WO2000021673A1 | Variable throw eccentric cone crusher and method for operating the same | 15 |
| 9 | JP1996257427A | Impact crusher and hammer replacement jig | 15 |
| 10 | CN2332475Y | 一种串级腔大破碎比颚式破碎机 | 14 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside this searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 concentration and citation data mean for filing strategy
Reading the ranking and the most-cited list together points to where prior art is dense and where a newcomer still has room to claim.
Leadership is real but not exclusive
The ranked leader holds 14 records out of 110, and the top five together hold 39.1% of all records in scope. That is enough concentration to signal where the densest prior art sits, but it leaves the majority of filings spread across a long tail of 55 further ranked companies.
Growth has flattened since the 2023 peak
Volume built steadily from 1 record in 2017 to 13 in 2023, but has not continued climbing since. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the apparent 2026 drop is a data artefact, not proof the field has cooled — but the plateau after 2023 predates that lag and is a real signal.
Older mechanical patents still anchor the field
The most-cited records date to the late 1990s and 2000s and cover eccentric cone crusher throw mechanisms and crushing-enhancing inserts. Their citation counts are high partly because they have had decades to accumulate references inside this corpus, not because current filers are still innovating around exactly those claims.
Filing is spread across six major offices
The United States leads with 26 filings, followed by Australia and the EPO at 15 each, and Canada, China and WIPO (PCT) at 10 each. That spread suggests applicants are pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than concentrating on a single home market.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to crushers (jaw, cone and impact), with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is still open
The ranked leaders sit inside crushing-equipment manufacturing, but recent-year momentum has cooled even for the top names, and several mechanical sub-areas remain thinly claimed.
A single leader, not a runaway one
The top-ranked assignee holds 14 of the 110 records in scope, roughly one in eight filings. That is a clear lead but well short of dominance, leaving substantial claim space for the remaining 59 ranked companies.
A gentle taper, not a cliff
Filing counts step down gradually from the leader through fifth place (5 records) to tenth place (3 records), rather than dropping sharply after the top few. That gradual taper is typical of a mature mechanical field with many incremental filers.
Even top filers show no recent-year activity
Recent-year momentum tracking shows the leading tracked assignees, including major crushing-equipment manufacturers, at zero filings in the latest year. Given the ~18-month publication lag, this likely reflects unpublished pending filings rather than a genuine halt, but it means the most recent published signal favours smaller and newer filers.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| McCloskey International Ltd | 0 | — |
| Sandvik Intellectual Property AB | 0 | — |
| Astec Industries Inc | 0 | — |
| Sandvik Ltd | 0 | — |
| Kleemann | 0 | — |
| UBE Corporation | 0 | — |
| Zhejiang Zhekuang Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| SEC Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to a mature, moderately concentrated field with a handful of clearly under-claimed mechanical branches. Two follow-ups make the most of that.
Map the top 5's actual claim boundaries
Concentration at 39.1% of 110 records is worth more once you know exactly what those five portfolios claim versus what they merely mention — the difference determines whether a new filing is blocked or simply adjacent.
Run a claims comparison in EurekaCheck the under-claimed branches for real freedom to operate
Sub-areas like liner wear-sensing or hydraulic jaw-pinning show only one or two records each in this dataset, but a single strong filing can still block a narrow path — worth confirming before committing engineering time.
Search white space in EurekaCommon questions about crusher patents
In this dataset of 110 records covering jaw, cone and impact crushers, the top-ranked assignee holds 14 records, and the top five combined account for 39.1% of all 110 records in scope. That is meaningful concentration but not dominance: 55 further ranked companies hold the remainder, forming a long tail typical of a mature mechanical equipment category. Anyone assessing freedom to operate should look at both the leader's portfolio and the broader mid-field, since incremental mechanical improvements are widely distributed rather than locked up by one firm.
Filing volume in this dataset rose from 1 record in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2023, then eased back toward the 2022 midpoint level of 7, indicating growth has flattened rather than continuing to accelerate. Because patent publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, the apparent decline in the most recent year or two is partly a data artefact and should not be read as a real collapse in activity. The more reliable signal is the plateau that set in after the 2023 peak, which predates that lag.
Nearly all 110 records in this dataset — effectively 100% — classify under IPC subclass B02C, crushing, grinding and pulverising machinery, confirming that inventive activity concentrates tightly inside the core crushing mechanism. Secondary classes appear only rarely: shafts and bearings (F16C) at 2 records, and single-record appearances in turning/boring, metalworking, fuel gasification, laundering equipment, tunnel support and fluid-pressure actuators. That narrow spread means most novelty claimed here is mechanical refinement — jaw geometry, liner wear, throughput and reduction ratio — rather than cross-domain integration.
The most-cited record in this dataset is US6213418B1, covering a variable throw eccentric cone crusher, cited 53 times, followed closely by two related filings on crushing-enhancing inserts and a rotary impact crusher design. High citation counts here reflect decades of accumulated references inside the searched corpus rather than current commercial importance — these are foundational mechanical concepts from the 1980s through early 2000s that later filings routinely reference as prior art. Newer entrants should treat them as a map of dense prior art to design around, not as evidence of what is still actively being litigated or licensed today.
The clearest gaps in this dataset sit outside the dense B02C core, in sub-areas that appear only once or twice: liner wear-sensing integration, hydraulic jaw-pinning mechanisms, cone crusher bearing and shaft coupling design, crusher-to-gasification feed coupling, and tunnel-support-integrated crushing units. Because filing counts there are so low, a single existing patent can still block a narrow path, so a freedom-to-operate check is worth doing before investing engineering time. These branches are under-claimed relative to the core crushing mechanism, not necessarily unclaimed outright.
Research Crushers (Jaw, Cone and Impact) in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole crushers (jaw, cone and impact) 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.