Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/fluid-catalytic-cracking-technology-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Oil Refining & LubricantsFluid Catalytic Cracking Patents: Who Holds the Riser, Regenerator and Catalyst Claims
- Filing has cooled since 2020. Activity peaked at 146 families in 2020 and had eased back toward 2017 levels (110 families) by the 2022 midpoint, well before the reporting lag of the most recent years is accounted for.
- Catalysis, not just refining, drives the claim space. 2,723 of 3,931 core C10G refining records also carry a B01J catalysis classification, meaning most FCC claims are fought over catalyst chemistry rather than vessel mechanics alone.
- Momentum has gone quiet at the very top. Several of the largest historical filers show zero new families in the latest tracked year, while smaller players post the only positive year-on-year movement in the dataset.
4,156
Published Records
46%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-50%
3-Yr Growth (lag-adjusted)
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What the fluid catalytic cracking patent record shows
Fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) remains one of the highest-throughput conversion steps in a refinery, and its patent record reflects decades of incremental engineering rather than a single dominant breakthrough. The dataset covers 4,156 patent families filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, concentrated around three functional zones of the FCC unit: the riser reactor where cracking occurs, the regenerator where spent catalyst is reburned, and the catalyst formulations themselves that govern propylene yield and resistance to metal contamination.
Filing activity is not evenly split across those zones. The overlap between hydrocarbon-processing classifications and catalysis classifications is heavy, which tells a reader that most contested claim territory sits in catalyst composition and additive chemistry, with separation equipment and cyclone design forming a smaller, more mechanically-focused tier beneath it.
Filing activity by year, 2017-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Fluid Catalytic Cracking Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Data
Filing trends and technology composition
Publication counts lag actual filing dates by roughly 18 months, so the final one or two years in any chart will always understate real activity. Read the trend for direction, not for a precise current-year count.
A decade of FCC filing activity
Annual filings rose from 106 in 2017 to a peak of 146 in 2020, then eased toward 110 by 2022 — a flat-to-declining pattern that suggests the core mechanical design space is largely settled, with remaining activity concentrated in catalyst tuning.
Where the claims sit
C10G (hydrocarbon oil refining) and B01J (catalysis) dominate the classification mix, with smaller but persistent activity in B01D separation processes, C07C hydrocarbon compounds, and B04C cyclone separators — the mechanical hardware layer around the reaction itself.
Shares are the percentage of the 4,156 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Fluid Catalytic Cracking Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Fluid Catalytic Cracking Technology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about fluid catalytic cracking technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited records in the corpus
Representative Filing
Processing of different feeds in a fluid catalytic cracking unit (US20060138027A1)
LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY INC.
The filing describes injecting a main hydrocarbon feed into a catalyst-containing riser reactor through main feed injectors, while a separate light hydrocarbon feed is injected upstream of those injectors and downstream of a control valve, in a zone of high catalyst-particle density, to improve C3, C4 and gasoline-range yields over conventional single-feed systems.Assignee and filing date are rendered in the table above; the mechanism — a dual-injection point tied to catalyst density rather than to reactor geometry — is what later filers have had to design around.
Highest-citation FCC patents
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20170165624A1 | Ceramic Orifice Chamber for Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit | 337 |
| 2 | US4422925A | Catalytic cracking | 232 |
| 3 | US4579716A | Closed reactor FCC system with provisions for surge capacity | 189 |
| 4 | US4830728A | Upgrading naphtha in a multiple riser fluid catalytic cracking operation employing a catalyst mixture | 186 |
| 5 | US5997728A | Catalyst system for maximizing light olefin yields in FCC | 183 |
| 6 | US6656346B2 | Fluid catalytic cracking process for heavy oil | 165 |
| 7 | US5801115A | Catalyst composition and methods for using and preparing same | 161 |
| 8 | US4364905A | Fluid catalytic cracking apparatus having riser reactor and improved means associated with the riser reactor … | 148 |
| 9 | US6106697A | Two stage fluid catalytic cracking process for selectively producing C2 to C4 olefins | 145 |
| 10 | US4973399A | Catalytic cracking of hydrocarbons | 143 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate references; treat this table as a map of influence, not of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Fluid Catalytic Cracking Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once family counts, classification overlap and receiving-office data are read together.
Filing Trend
146 → 110
peak (2020) vs. 2022 midpoint
The design space is maturing
A peak in 2020 followed by a decline to roughly 2017-era volumes by 2022 indicates the core riser and regenerator mechanics are well-claimed. New entrants are more likely to find open ground in catalyst additive chemistry than in vessel design.
Based on annual family counts, 2017-2022
Classification Overlap
2,723 of 3,931
C10G records also tagged B01J
Catalysis is the real battleground
The large overlap between refining and catalysis classifications shows that most disputed claim territory concerns catalyst formulation and additive behaviour — metal tolerance, zeolite structure, propylene selectivity — rather than mechanical unit design.
IPC co-occurrence, C10G x B01J
Geographic Filing
1,167 US filings
leading receiving office
US and EPO carry the bulk of activity
The United States leads receiving-office volume, followed by Europe and PCT/WIPO filings, with Canada, India and Australia forming a second tier. A freedom-to-operate review should prioritise US and EPO prior art before assuming clearance elsewhere.
Receiving office counts, all years
Assignee Momentum
0% to -100% YoY
movement among top historical filers
Momentum has quieted at the top
Several of the largest historical assignees register zero filings in the latest tracked year, and one shows a full year-on-year drop-off. Only a smaller filer shows positive movement, which is worth watching even though its absolute volume is low.
Latest-year filings by assignee
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to fluid catalytic cracking technology, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Fluid Catalytic Cracking Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is active, and who has gone quiet
Assignee activity in this dataset splits into a historical core of refiners and catalyst suppliers, several of which have slowed sharply, and a thin layer of co-filing partnerships that point to active technology-sharing arrangements.
Co-Filing Pattern
43 shared families
strongest co-assignee pair
Joint filings cluster around national oil companies
The strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset links a national oil producer with its services affiliate, followed by a long-standing catalyst-and-refiner pairing. These pairings typically signal joint development agreements rather than incidental overlap.
Top co-assignee pairs by shared family count
Latest-Year Momentum
+100% YoY
one assignee's latest-year change
Small filers show the only growth
Among assignees with recent activity, the only positive year-on-year movement comes from a smaller-volume filer moving from one to two families, while several of the historically largest filers report zero new families in the same period.
Year-on-year change, most recent tracked year
Historical Weight
5 top-cited patents
span three decades of filings
Influence is concentrated in older grants
The most-cited records in the corpus date back as far as the early 1980s, reflecting how citation counts accumulate with age rather than current relevance. Newer filings should be judged on claim scope, not on citation volume alone.
Most-cited records table
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| W.R. Grace & Co. | 2 | +100% |
| BASF Corporation | 1 | 0% |
| Mobil Oil Corporation | 0 | — |
| ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company | 0 | — |
| UOP LLC | 0 | — |
| Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco) | 0 | -100% |
| Lummus Technology Inc. | 0 | — |
| Shell International Research Maatschappij B.V. | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Fluid Catalytic Cracking Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, sourcing, or identifying a filing gap.
Map catalyst-chemistry claims in detail
Given the heavy C10G/B01J overlap, a deeper claim-by-claim review of catalyst additive and zeolite formulation patents will surface more actionable prior art than a broad FCC-unit search.
Explore catalyst claims in EurekaWatch the quiet incumbents
Several of the largest historical filers show no new activity in the latest year. Track whether that reflects a shift to trade-secret practice or a genuine slowdown before assuming the space is open.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaTest the under-claimed branches
Cyclone liner geometry and regenerator heat-recovery integration show thinner filing density than core riser and catalyst claims, making them worth a targeted novelty search.
Run a white-space search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Fluid Catalytic Cracking Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about FCC patents
The dataset shows a concentrated group of major refiners and catalyst suppliers holding the largest historical volumes, alongside national oil companies that co-file with their services affiliates. However, several of these largest historical filers show zero new families in the most recent tracked year, so raw historical volume does not necessarily indicate who is actively filing today. Checking recent-year momentum alongside total family count gives a more accurate picture of current activity.
Filing activity peaked in 2020 at 146 families and had eased back to around 110 by 2022, a flat-to-declining pattern rather than sustained growth. Because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, the final one or two years in any chart understate true activity, but the multi-year trend through the 2020 peak is a reliable signal that the core design space is maturing. This does not mean innovation has stopped; it suggests remaining activity is shifting toward catalyst chemistry rather than reactor mechanics.
The classification data shows most claim density sits in core hydrocarbon refining and catalysis, with thinner coverage in areas like cyclone erosion-resistant liner geometry, regenerator flue-gas heat recovery integration, and metal-contaminant passivation additives. These branches sit adjacent to heavily-claimed territory but have not attracted the same filing volume. A targeted novelty search in these specific sub-areas is more likely to surface genuine white space than a broad search across the whole FCC unit.
Citation counts accumulate over time, so patents filed decades ago naturally collect more citations than recent filings simply by having been in the corpus longer. The most-cited records in this dataset span from the early 1980s onward, reflecting foundational riser reactor and catalyst system designs rather than current commercial priority. A recent, less-cited filing can still carry broader or more commercially relevant claims, so citation count should be read as a measure of historical influence, not present-day importance.
The United States is the leading receiving office in this dataset, followed by the European Patent Office and PCT/WIPO international filings, with Canada, India and Australia forming a smaller second tier. This distribution reflects where major refining capacity and catalyst manufacturing are concentrated. A freedom-to-operate search focused only on the top two or three offices will still miss regional filings in the second tier, so scope should be set according to where the product will actually be deployed.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Fluid Catalytic Cracking Technology covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Fluid Catalytic Cracking Technology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole fluid catalytic cracking technology 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.