Fluorinated Gas Abatement Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- 48.3% of all 939 records sit with just five assignees, so most of the claim space in scrubber and abatement-system design is already staked out by a small group.
- Filing peaked in 2021 at 76 records then fell to 34 by 2024, a -55% move over that span — a genuine slowdown, not a data artefact, since 2024 is the last complete year.
- B01D separation processes cover 47.9% of records while plasma and particle-accelerator methods under H05H sit at just 6.5%, marking where fewer claims compete for the same ground.
Filing growth compares 2021 (76 records) with 2024 (34) — 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 939 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Fluorinated gas abatement covers the hardware and process claims built around destroying or capturing perfluorocompounds and other fluorinated effluents from semiconductor and electronics manufacturing tools. The search spans 939 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, pulled from filings that combine abatement-system language with destruction-removal-efficiency, plasma, thermal-oxidation and byproduct-formation terms. Patent families, not raw document counts, are the unit used throughout this page, which keeps the picture from being skewed by continuation filings or duplicate jurisdictional copies of the same invention.
Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend line are still filling in and should not be read as a drop-off. The dataset's own complete-year comparison, 2021 to 2024, is the one to trust for direction.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 939 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings ran from 53 in 2017 to a peak of 76 in 2021, then declined to 34 by 2024 — a -55% move over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures (down to 3 by 2026) are not yet complete and understate true recent activity due to publication lag.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
B01D (separation processes) anchors the field at 47.9% of the 939 records, followed by B01J (catalysis, 17.0%) and H10P (14.0%). Plasma-specific claims under H05H trail at 6.5%, and F23G incineration methods sit at 9.6% — each record can carry multiple classes, so these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 939 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Fluorinated Gas Abatement and Emission Control with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about fluorinated gas abatement and emission control and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Methods and systems for designing and validating operation of abatement systems
A method of developing an integrated abatement system is provided, including determining whether the system meets a destruction removal efficiency standard by operating a process tool using a best known method, abating the target species to form abated effluent, calculating a destruction removal efficiency, and then modifying the abatement system by altering a design or operating parameter based on that calculation.Filed by Applied Materials, published 2009-01-15 as US20090018688A1 — a validation-and-design-loop claim rather than a single hardware configuration.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20030180458A1 | ALD apparatus and method | 651 |
| 2 | US6911092B2 | ALD apparatus and method | 585 |
| 3 | US7569193B2 | Apparatus and method for controlled combustion of gaseous pollutants | 395 |
| 4 | US20080134887A1 | Low pressure drop canister for fixed bed scrubber applications and method of using same | 373 |
| 5 | US6423284B1 | Fluorine abatement using steam injection in oxidation treatment of semiconductor manufacturing effluent gases | 262 |
| 6 | US6322756B1 | Effluent gas stream treatment system having utility for oxidation treatment of semiconductor manufacturing ef… | 173 |
| 7 | US6560958B1 | Emission abatement system | 156 |
| 8 | US6367412B1 | Porous ceramic liner for a plasma source | 138 |
| 9 | US5759237A | Process and system for selective abatement of reactive gases and recovery of perfluorocompound gases | 113 |
| 10 | US20050135984A1 | Apparatus and method for controlled combustion of gaseous pollutants | 103 |
Citation counts reward older filings simply for having more time to accumulate references — treat this table as a map of influence within the corpus, not a ranking of current technical importance.
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 R&D and IP strategy
Three read-outs from the filing pattern that matter more than the raw counts.
The top of the field is tightly held
Almost half of all records in scope trace to five assignees, with the leader alone holding 212 records. New entrants filing broad system-level abatement claims are filing into occupied ground; the more open path is a specific process parameter or sub-component.
Filing has genuinely cooled since 2021
The -55% move from 2021 to 2024 is a complete-year comparison, not an artefact of publication lag. It suggests the core abatement-system architecture claims were largely staked out earlier in the decade, with less headroom left for pure hardware-configuration filings.
Plasma-route claims are comparatively thin
Separation (B01D) and catalysis (B01J) dominate the claim space, but plasma-based abatement under H05H covers only 6.5% of records. That is a smaller, less contested subclass relative to the thermal and scrubber-based routes that make up the bulk of filings.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to fluorinated gas abatement and emission control, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape
The ranking covers 100 companies returned by the data endpoint, not an arbitrary top-50 or top-100 cut — read it as the whole ranked set behind this search.
One process-tool maker dominates by volume
The leading assignee's record count is more than eight times the count sitting in tenth place, reflecting years of filing around integrated abatement-system design, validation and control rather than a single device.
The drop-off past the leaders is gradual, not a cliff
Fifth place holds 26 records and tenth holds 20 — a modest gap that points to several mid-size players with sustained filing programmes rather than one runner-up chasing the leader.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated on one assignee
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest links all involve the same lead assignee paired with individual named inventors, suggesting most abatement-system IP is developed and held in-house rather than through joint filings.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Applied Materials, Inc. | 1 | -90% |
| Edwards Ltd | 0 | — |
| Xyleco Inc | 0 | — |
| Advanced Technology Materials, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Engelhard Corp | 0 | — |
| Thermatrix Inc | 0 | — |
| Stamicarbon B.V. | 0 | — |
| Casale SA | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The concentration and technology-mix figures point to specific next steps depending on whether you are clearing a design or building a filing strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on the leader's claims
With 212 records held by a single assignee, any new abatement-system filing should be checked against that portfolio's validation-and-control claims before committing to a design direction.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaMap the H05H plasma-route white space in detail
At 6.5% of records, plasma-based abatement claims are the thinnest of the major subclasses tracked here — worth a closer subclass-level pull before assuming it is crowded.
Pull the full IPC breakdown in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
One assignee leads this landscape with 212 of the 939 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 26 and tenth place at 20. That leader's filings concentrate on integrated abatement-system design, validation and control methods rather than a single piece of hardware. The top five assignees combined account for 48.3% of all records, so the field is concentrated but not a single-company monopoly.
Filing peaked in 2021 at 76 records and had fallen to 34 by 2024, a -55% move over that complete-year span. That is a genuine cooling trend rather than an artefact of recent data, since 2024 is the most recent year that can be treated as fully published. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still filling in due to the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, so they should not yet be read as a continued decline.
Separation processes under IPC class B01D cover 47.9% of the 939 records, making it the single largest technology bucket, followed by chemical and catalytic processes under B01J at 17.0%. Coating and surface deposition (C23C) and semiconductor device claims (H01L) each sit above 11%, reflecting the tie between abatement hardware and the fabrication tools it serves. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should be read individually rather than summed.
Plasma and particle-accelerator based abatement under H05H covers just 6.5% of records, the smallest share among the major subclasses tracked in this dataset, suggesting less-crowded claim space relative to thermal and scrubber-based routes. Specific sub-areas such as scrubber maintenance interval prediction, low-pressure-drop canister design and energy-consumption-optimised thermal oxidation also show thinner filing density than the broad separation and catalysis categories. A first claim in these areas would likely need to tie a specific operating parameter or sensor feedback loop to a measurable destruction removal efficiency outcome to clear the existing art.
US20090018688A1, assigned to Applied Materials and published in 2009, claims a method for developing an integrated abatement system that determines whether the system meets a destruction removal efficiency standard and then modifies the system's design or operating parameters based on that calculation. It is a validation-and-design-loop claim rather than a claim on a specific piece of hardware, which means it can be relevant to anyone building an iterative testing or control process around an abatement system, even if their physical scrubber or oxidizer design differs. Anyone working in this space should check whether their own validation methodology overlaps with this claim structure before assuming a novel hardware design alone clears it.
Research Fluorinated Gas Abatement and Emission Control in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole fluorinated gas abatement and emission control 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.