Dry Gas Seal Face Design Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- 64.3% concentration. The top 5 of 34 ranked assignees hold 54 of the 84 records in scope — filing here is concentrated, not fragmented.
- F16J dominates, B01D trails far behind. 54 records (64.3%) sit in seals and gaskets classification, versus 18 (21.4%) in separation processes — face geometry claims outnumber upstream gas-conditioning claims by a wide margin.
- China leads receiving offices at 20. Ahead of the United States (18) and EPO (14), signalling where examination activity and prior art density are building fastest.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 84 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Dry gas seal face design sits at the intersection of tribology and rotating-equipment engineering: patents in scope cover groove patterns, gas film stiffness, opening-force balance, leakage-rate control and face deformation under startup contact. The search captures 84 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026, spanning both the mechanical seal itself and the upstream gas-conditioning equipment that feeds it. Filing is not evenly spread: a handful of assignees account for the bulk of the record base, and the classification mix shows the field is anchored in seal and gasket engineering rather than in the separation or turbine equipment it serves.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent filing year in this data set understates real activity — 2026 figures in particular should be read as a partial year, not a decline.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 84 records: one tracking when filings published, the other tracking what they claim. Read them together — a flat trend with a concentrated IPC mix points to a field where the remaining question is who occupies which sub-claim, not whether the space is still growing.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings open at 1 in 2017, peak at 12 in 2018, and run through to 1 in 2026 (a partial year). With fewer than four complete years once publication lag is accounted for, a growth rate cannot be responsibly stated from this data.
IPC subclass composition
F16J (pistons, seals and gaskets) covers 64.3% of the 84 records, more than three times the share of B01D (separation processes, 21.4%). F04D (non-positive-displacement pumps, 13.1%) and F01D (turbines, 8.3%) show the seal's application context; G06F, F02C, G01M and G01N each sit under 4%, marking smaller cross-disciplinary threads such as monitoring and testing rather than core face design.
Shares are the percentage of the 84 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Dry Gas Seal Face Design with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about dry gas seal face design and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
Ring with recirculating grooves for dry gas seal — John Crane Inc.
A mating ring for use in a dry gas seal and a dry gas seal. The mating ring includes a face that defines an inner diameter and an outer diameter. The face includes a channel formed between the inner and outer diameter, one or more inlet channels extending from the inner diameter to the channel, and one or more spiral grooves extending from the channel toward the inner diameter. Alternatively, the inlet channels can extend from the outer diameter to the channel with spiral grooves extending outward.Published 2023-12-21, assigned to John Crane Inc.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20110031103A1 | Method and Apparatus For Removal Of Oil From Utility Gas Stream | 108 |
| 2 | US20040232622A1 | Dry gas seal | 74 |
| 3 | US7144016B2 | Dry gas seal | 73 |
| 4 | US9126138B2 | Method and apparatus for removal of oil from utility gas stream | 46 |
| 5 | US20140203517A1 | Mechanical face seal with a reverse trapezoidal face pattern | 41 |
| 6 | US20150328578A1 | Method And Apparatus For Removal of Oil From Utility Gas Stream | 31 |
| 7 | US7854584B2 | Barrier sealing system for centrifugal compressors | 28 |
| 8 | CN108506494A | 一种仿鱼骨型干气密封结构 | 26 |
| 9 | US9574666B2 | Mechanical face seal with a reverse trapezoidal face pattern | 19 |
| 10 | EP1995465A1 | Barrier sealing system for centrifugal compressors | 16 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and favour older filings; treat them as a signal of influence on later filers, not of current commercial importance.
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 data means for a filing decision
The record base is small enough that individual assignees, not broad industry trends, drive most of what the numbers show.
Filing is concentrated at the top
The leader alone accounts for 19 records, with fifth place at 8 and tenth place at 3 — a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one. New entrants are filing into a space where a small group already holds the majority of the face-pattern and groove-geometry claims.
Face geometry claims dominate over gas-conditioning claims
F16J (seals and gaskets) covers close to two-thirds of the record base, while B01D (separation, filtration) trails at just over a fifth. Filers focused on the seal face itself are competing in denser prior art than those working the upstream gas-treatment side.
Examination activity leads in China, not the US
China's receiving office count (20) edges out the United States (18) and the EPO (14), with Canada, the UK and Austria trailing further behind. A filing strategy built only around US and European coverage would miss where the largest single block of records sits.
A tight cluster of individual co-inventors
Three pairings each share 8 records, all among individually named inventors rather than corporate assignees — a signal of a small, close-knit filing team working the same claim territory rather than a broad industry collaboration.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to dry gas seal face design, with the prior art for and against each one.
Leaders, momentum and open ground
The ranking covers all 34 assignees the data endpoint returns for this search — not a top-50 or top-100 cut. Recent-year momentum for the leading names shows zero filings in the latest year, consistent with the trend's 2026 figure being an early, partial count rather than a drop-off.
A single assignee sets the pace
The leading assignee's 19 records are more than double the fifth-placed assignee's 8, establishing a clear anchor position in seal-face and groove-pattern claims that any new entrant has to file around.
A long tail beneath the leaders
Beyond the top 10 (which already hold 88.1% of all 84 records), the remaining assignees each contribute small, likely single-family filings — the classic long tail of entrants testing narrow claim variations rather than building portfolios.
Individually named inventors filing together
The strongest co-assignee relationships in this data set link named individuals rather than corporations, each pair sharing 8 records — worth checking directly if evaluating freedom to operate around a specific groove or channel design.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company | 0 | — |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| John Crane Inc. | 0 | — |
| JACOBS LARRY | 0 | — |
| GRAY CHRISTOPHER | 0 | — |
| FERRIS JASON | 0 | — |
| Nuovo Pignone Tecnologie S.r.l. | 0 | — |
| Flowserve Management Company | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The landscape numbers point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio benchmarking or identifying open claim space.
Check freedom to operate against the leader's claim set
With one assignee holding 19 of 84 records and F16J claims covering nearly two-thirds of the field, a targeted claim chart against the leading assignee's groove and face-pattern filings is the first practical step before committing to a specific geometry.
Explore claims in EurekaTrack the under-claimed branches before they fill in
Startup-contact monitoring and digital opening-force modelling each sit in single-digit percentage shares of the 84 records — small enough that a well-drafted first claim could still stake out meaningful ground.
Run a white space search in EurekaWatch the named co-filing cluster
The individually named inventors behind the strongest co-assignee pairs are active in the same groove and channel territory; monitoring their future publications is a low-cost way to anticipate where the next dense filing cluster will land.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on dry gas seal face design patents
Within this 84-record data set, filing is concentrated: the leading assignee alone holds 19 records, more than double the fifth-ranked assignee's 8. The top 5 of 34 ranked assignees together account for 64.3% of all records, and the top 10 reach 88.1%. That leaves a long tail of assignees each contributing only a handful of filings, so due diligence should focus first on the leading names before scanning the tail for narrow, specific claims.
A groove pattern claim typically covers the specific geometry cut into the seal face — spiral, herringbone, recirculating or reverse-trapezoidal channels — that generates gas film stiffness and controls opening force during rotation. These claims sit within the F16J classification, which covers 64.3% of the 84 records in this landscape, making it the densest area of prior art. A freedom-to-operate check on a new groove design should start by comparing its channel path and inlet/outlet geometry against existing spiral and recirculating-groove claims.
The filing trend runs from 1 record in 2017 to a peak of 12 in 2018, and down to 1 in the partial 2026 year. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the low 2026 figure understates real filing activity rather than indicating a slowdown. With fewer than four complete years of data once that lag is accounted for, a reliable growth rate cannot be stated from this data set.
China leads as a receiving office with 20 records, ahead of the United States at 18 and the European Patent Office at 14; Canada (8), the United Kingdom (5) and Austria (4) follow. This means a filing or clearance strategy built solely around US and European coverage would miss the single largest block of activity, which sits in China.
Classification shares point to smaller, cross-disciplinary threads as the least crowded: digital opening-force modelling (G06F-adjacent, 3.6% of records), gas-turbine-integrated seal conditioning (F02C-adjacent, 2.4%), and startup-contact wear monitoring (G01M-adjacent, 2.4%) each sit well below the dominant F16J and B01D shares. These branches are small enough that a well-scoped first claim could still stake out meaningful ground, though the small counts also mean the field could be under-searched rather than genuinely open — verify with a dedicated white space search before committing.
Research Dry Gas Seal Face Design in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole dry gas seal face design 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.