Fischer-Tropsch Catalyst Patents: Leaders & Where Filings Stalled 2026
- Filing has gone flat, not up. The trend runs from 2 filings in 2017 to a peak of 8 in 2024, with 2022 sitting at zero — a stop-start pattern rather than steady growth.
- Gasification and catalysis dominate the claim space. C10G (hydrocarbon oils, 93 records) and B01J (catalytic processes, 78 records) between them cover the great majority of the 154 families in this set.
- The US is the primary filing venue. 61 of the tracked records were filed at the USPTO, more than the WIPO/PCT route (35) and every other office combined.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 154 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine Fischer-Tropsch synthesis with cobalt catalyst design, iron-based FT catalyst work, or explicit catalyst-selectivity engineering. It spans the full process chain from syngas generation through catalyst regeneration to downstream fuel and gas purification, which is why the IPC spread reaches into gasification (C10J), gas purification (C10K) and coke/destructive distillation (C10B) as well as the core catalysis classes.
Filing activity in this set is uneven rather than trending cleanly upward, and because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent years understate real activity. Read the trend as a signal of where claim density already sits, not as a forecast.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 154-family dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim weight.
A stop-start filing pattern
Filings opened at 2 in 2017, dropped to zero at the 2022 midpoint, then rebounded to a peak of 8 in 2024 before the partial, still-incomplete 2026 count. That midpoint gap suggests a period where the field went quiet before renewed interest picked up in 2023-2024.
Concentrated in oil refining and catalysis
C10G (93 records) and B01J (78) anchor the set, with C01B (54) and C07C (44) close behind — evidence that most claims sit at the intersection of hydrocarbon processing and catalytic chemistry rather than in adjacent gas-purification or coking classes, which trail well behind at 25, 16 and 8 records respectively.
Shares are the percentage of the 154 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis Catalyst Design with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about fischer-tropsch synthesis catalyst design and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this space
System and method for production of fischer-tropsch synthesis products and power
A method for generation of power and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis products by producing synthesis gas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide, producing Fischer-Tropsch synthesis products and Fischer-Tropsch tailgas from a first portion of the synthesis gas, and generating power from a second portion of the synthesis gas, from at least a portion of the Fischer-Tropsch tailgas, or from both. The method may also comprise conditioning at least a portion of the synthesis gas and/or upgrading at least a portion of the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis products. A system for carrying out the method is also provided.Filed by RES USA, LLC, published 2013-06-27 as US20130165534A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20100181539A1 | System and method for dual fluidized bed gasification | 165 |
| 2 | US6838487B1 | Method and apparatus for regenerating an iron-based Fischer-Tropsch catalyst | 104 |
| 3 | US6976362B2 | Integrated Fischer-Tropsch and power production plant with low CO2 emissions | 84 |
| 4 | US20040216465A1 | Integrated fischer-tropsch and power production plant with low CO2 emissions | 62 |
| 5 | US20130165534A1 | System and method for production of fischer-tropsch synthesis products and power | 59 |
| 6 | US8168686B2 | Integrated biorefinery for production of liquid fuels | 49 |
| 7 | US6632846B2 | Integrated urea manufacturing plants and processes | 43 |
| 8 | US20120020846A1 | Integrated biorefinery for production of liquid fuels | 37 |
| 9 | US20020055545A1 | Integrated urea manufacturing plants and processes | 33 |
| 10 | US8241523B2 | System and method for dual fluidized bed gasification | 32 |
Citation counts reward older filings simply for having been in circulation longer; treat this table as a map of influential prior art, not a ranking of current technical 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 means for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the families are grouped by year, office and IPC class.
Activity paused, then restarted
A zero year at the 2022 midpoint followed by the dataset's peak in 2024 points to a field that went quiet during a specific window rather than one in steady decline. Anyone reading only the endpoints (2 in 2017 versus 0 in 2026) would miss that mid-period spike entirely.
The US is the default first filing venue
United States filings (61) outnumber the WIPO/PCT route (35) and all other offices combined, including Canada (17), Australia (12), EPO (11) and South Africa (7). A defensive filing strategy built only around PCT coverage would miss the majority venue for this art.
Core refining claims are the densest
C10G carries more records than any other subclass, with B01J close behind. New filings that sit squarely in hydrocarbon oil processing or general catalytic-process claims are entering the most crowded part of this landscape.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across 154 families, and the strongest pairing recurs 11 times. Most applicants in this space filed solo rather than in joint ventures or research consortia.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to fischer-tropsch synthesis catalyst design, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
Recent-year momentum across the tracked assignees is flat: every named assignee in this dataset shows zero filings in the latest tracked year, and one shows a -100% year-on-year drop. That pattern is consistent with the dataset's own trend line, where 2026 is still an incomplete filing year.
A small core of repeat filers
The strongest co-assignee relationship in this dataset recurs 11 times, well ahead of the next pairings at 6 each. That concentration suggests a small group of named inventors and their sponsoring company account for a disproportionate share of the joint filings.
No assignee shows recent momentum
Every named assignee in the recent-momentum data, including the most active historical filers, records zero filings in the latest tracked year. Combined with the 2026 filing count of zero, this reads as a reporting-lag effect rather than genuine abandonment of the space.
Filing is US-centred with selective international coverage
Beyond the US and PCT routes, filers extended coverage into Canada, Australia, Europe and South Africa in materially smaller numbers. That pattern fits a technology tied to specific gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids project geographies rather than broad global consumer markets.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Rentech, Inc. | 0 | — |
| RES USA, LLC | 0 | — |
| WRIGHT HAROLD A | 0 | — |
| SGCE LLC | 0 | — |
| BP p.l.c. | 0 | -100% |
| YAKOBSON DENNIS L | 0 | — |
| PEARSON JOSHUA B | 0 | — |
| GTL Energy Holdings Limited | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific questions worth running down before committing a filing strategy in this space.
Check freedom-to-operate against the most-cited families
The highest-cited records in this set cluster around integrated Fischer-Tropsch and power-production systems and iron-catalyst regeneration. Any new filing touching combined power and synthesis output should be checked against these specifically.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in Eureka →Track whether the 2024 filing rebound continues
The jump from zero filings in 2022 to eight in 2024 could mark a renewed investment cycle or a one-off cluster from a small number of applicants. Watching the next 12-18 months of publications will clarify which it is.
Set up a filing-trend alert in Eureka →Probe the under-claimed branches before drafting
Selectivity-control and tail-gas recycle claims show thinner coverage than the core refining and catalysis classes. A first-filer advantage may still be available in these narrower branches.
Explore white space in Eureka →Common questions about this landscape
This dataset tracks 154 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine Fischer-Tropsch synthesis with cobalt catalyst design, iron-based FT catalyst work, or catalyst-selectivity engineering. Filing activity has not grown steadily over that period; it opened at 2 filings in 2017, dropped to zero at the 2022 midpoint, then rebounded to a peak of 8 in 2024. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in any such dataset will always look artificially low until later filings catch up in the record.
The assignee ranking in this dataset is led by a small group of repeat filers, with the strongest co-assignee relationship recurring 11 times, well ahead of the next pairings at 6 filings each. Notably, every named assignee in the recent-momentum data shows zero filings in the latest tracked year, which is consistent with the overall filing trend rather than a sign that these companies have exited the field. Anyone tracking competitive activity here should look at the full historical filing count per assignee, not just the most recent year, given the reporting lag.
The dataset spans eight IPC subclasses, led by C10G (hydrocarbon oils and refining, 93 records) and B01J (chemical and physical catalytic processes, 78 records). C01B (inorganic compounds, 54) and C07C (acyclic and carbocyclic compounds, 44) follow, with gasification (C10J), gas purification (C10K), fuels (C10L) and coke/destructive distillation (C10B) covering smaller, more specialised slices. This spread reflects that Fischer-Tropsch catalyst patents typically claim across the full syngas-to-fuel process chain rather than the catalyst chemistry alone.
The United States is the dominant filing venue in this dataset with 61 records, ahead of the WIPO/PCT route at 35. Canada (17), Australia (12), the European Patent Office (11) and South Africa (7) follow at meaningfully smaller volumes. That geographic pattern likely tracks where gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids projects have actually been built and commercialised, rather than reflecting a broad global consumer filing strategy.
Not on a straight upward line. The filing trend in this dataset moves from 2 filings in 2017 to zero at the 2022 midpoint before climbing back to a peak of 8 in 2024, which is a stop-start pattern rather than sustained growth. Whether that 2024 rebound continues will only become clear once later filing years finish publishing, since publication lags filing by around 18 months and the most recent years in any patent dataset are always undercounted at the time of query.
Research Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis Catalyst Design in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole fischer-tropsch synthesis catalyst 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.