Gasoline Blending Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing peaked in 2018 at 35 families and has fallen back toward zero since, a pattern more consistent with a settled claim map than an active filing race.
- Two IPC subclasses carry most of the weight C10L (fuels) and C10G (hydrocarbon oil refining) together account for the bulk of the 305 families, with catalysis (B01J) a distant third.
- Shell's two entities co-file more than anyone else 10 co-assignee pairs exist in the dataset, and the Shell Research / Shell Oil pairing is by far the strongest at 14 shared families.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families filed against gasoline blending and octane enhancement — the chemistry and process claims around research octane number targets, oxygenate content, vapor pressure control and aromatics limits that refiners and additive suppliers use to hit finished-fuel specifications. The search spans 305 published families from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, filtered to IPC classes covering fuel compositions, hydrocarbon oil refining and blend optimization.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend line are undercounts by construction — treat the most recent one or two years as provisional rather than a real drop-off signal on their own.
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 305 families: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A 2018 peak, then a steady decline
Filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 35 in 2018, then declined through the following years with the midpoint year, 2022, registering effectively no filings in this corpus. That shape is more consistent with an early wave of core-chemistry claims followed by a pause than with a technology still being actively staked out.
Fuels and refining dominate the classification
C10L (fuels and firelighters) appears in 253 of the 305 records and C10G (hydrocarbon oil refining) in 150, meaning most families are classified in both — consistent with claims that combine a blend composition with a refining or conversion step. Catalysis (B01J, 51 records) and acyclic/carbocyclic organic chemistry (C07C, 43) form a smaller secondary cluster, most likely alkylation and reforming catalyst work rather than finished-blend claims.
Shares are the percentage of the 305 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Gasoline Blending and Octane Enhancement with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about gasoline blending and octane enhancement and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records that anchor this space
US20180346837A1 — Fuel compositions (Shell USA, Inc., 2018)
Gasoline fuel composition suitable for use in an internal combustion engine comprising: (a) Fischer-Tropsch derived naphtha at a level from 2 to 20% v/v; (b) at least one aromatic octane booster present at a level of 0.75 to 8% v/v or less; and (c) a gasoline base fuel; wherein the gasoline fuel composition comprises 40% v/v or less of aromatics. In a preferred embodiment, the Research Octane Number (RON) of the gasoline fuel composition is increased while maintaining the aromatic content of the gasoline fuel composition at a level of 40% v/v or less.Numbers and dates as published; see the linked record for the full claim set.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US7432408B2 | Integrated alkylation process using ionic liquid catalysts | 186 |
| 2 | US20190185772A1 | Low sulfur marine fuel compositions | 94 |
| 3 | US20060131209A1 | Integrated alkylation process using ionic liquid catalysts | 94 |
| 4 | US4522935A | Platinum and indium-containing catalyst for reforming hydrocarbons | 74 |
| 5 | US20040060229A1 | Fuel additive systems | 69 |
| 6 | US5780703A | Process for producing low aromatic diesel fuel with high cetane index | 68 |
| 7 | US4487848A | Indium-containing catalyst for reforming hydrocarbons | 57 |
| 8 | US4463104A | Platinum group and phosphorus containing catalyst composition for hydrocarbon conversion | 49 |
| 9 | US5830345A | Process of producing a debenzenated and isomerized gasoline blending stock by using a dual functional catalyst | 48 |
| 10 | US5237115A | Integrated olefin processing | 47 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply by virtue of having had longer to accumulate them — read this as a map of foundational art, not of which claims matter most today.
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 numbers mean for a filing decision
Four read-outs from the trend and classification data, aimed at where a new filing would or would not add anything.
The core chemistry claim wave has passed
Filing activity peaked in 2018 and had flattened to zero by the 2022 midpoint of the coverage window. New entrants filing broad blend-composition claims today are filing into art that was largely staked out five to eight years ago.
Most claims pair a blend with a process step
The high overlap between C10L (fuel compositions) and C10G (refining) subclasses indicates that a majority of families claim a specific finished blend together with a conversion or refining step, rather than a composition alone.
Filing strategy centres on the US with PCT as backup
United States filings lead by a wide margin, with EPO and WIPO PCT routes next, and Canada, Singapore and India each drawing a meaningful but smaller share — a pattern typical of refiners protecting home and export-fuel markets rather than chasing broad global coverage.
Co-assignment is rare and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the corpus, and one pairing — Shell's international research arm with its oil operating company — accounts for the bulk of shared filings, suggesting most other applicants file solo rather than through joint ventures.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to gasoline blending and octane enhancement, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where they've stopped
Filing history and the most-cited records point to a small group of major refiners and technology licensors as the anchor assignees, but recent-year momentum for those same names has gone flat.
Recent-year filing has gone quiet across the board
Every major assignee tracked for recent-year momentum — including the largest refiners and technology licensors in the corpus — shows zero families in the latest year, with one recording a -100% year-on-year change. This is consistent with the broader 2018-peak-then-decline trend rather than a single company pulling back.
Shell's research and operating arms file jointly
The strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset pairs an international research entity with an operating oil company under the same corporate group, sharing 14 families — a structure that suggests centralized R&D with regional or product-line co-assignment rather than external joint ventures.
Alkylation process claims anchor the citation graph
The most-cited record in the corpus covers an integrated alkylation process using ionic liquid catalysts, with a related earlier filing on the same subject also drawing 94 citations — together they form the citation backbone that later blend-composition and additive filings build on or design around.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company | 0 | -100% |
| Shell International Research Maatschappij B.V. | 0 | — |
| Shell Oil Company | 0 | — |
| Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco) | 0 | — |
| Chevron U.S.A. Inc. | 0 | — |
| Mobil Oil Corporation | 0 | — |
| UOP LLC | 0 | — |
| Phillips Petroleum Company | 0 | — |
Where to take this
Two directions depending on whether you're scoping freedom-to-operate or looking for an open filing angle.
Check claims against the anchor patents
Start with the most-cited alkylation and marine-fuel records before drafting anything in the core C10L/C10G space — they define the prior art that later filings had to work around.
Explore the citation map in EurekaTest an under-claimed branch
The gas-turbine crossover and gasification-route classes carry only a handful of records each, which may mean genuine white space or may mean the branch doesn't map cleanly to this search string — worth a targeted search before committing.
Run a targeted search in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
The corpus is anchored by large integrated refiners and their research arms, with Shell's research and operating entities showing the strongest co-filing relationship in the dataset at 14 shared families. Other major oil companies and technology licensors appear across the ranking, but recent-year momentum data shows every one of the major tracked assignees at zero new families in the latest year. This suggests the current landscape reflects filings built up over the 2017-2020 period rather than an active race today.
Filing activity rose from 2 families in 2017 to a peak of 35 in 2018, then fell back toward zero by the 2022 midpoint of the coverage window. This pattern typically indicates that the core composition and process chemistry was claimed early, leaving less open space for new broad filings afterward. It does not necessarily mean interest in the technology declined — it may mean the easy claims were taken and later work shifted to narrower, harder-to-spot variations.
C10L (fuels and firelighters) and C10G (hydrocarbon oil refining) dominate, appearing in 253 and 150 of the 305 records respectively, with substantial overlap between the two. B01J (catalysis) and C07C (acyclic and carbocyclic compounds) form a smaller secondary cluster tied to alkylation and reforming catalyst chemistry rather than finished-blend claims. Anyone drafting or searching in this space should check both C10L and C10G together, since most families are classified in more than one.
That filing, assigned to Shell USA, claims a gasoline composition combining Fischer-Tropsch derived naphtha at 2-20% v/v with an aromatic octane booster at 0.75-8% v/v, while keeping total aromatics at 40% v/v or less. It blocks formulations that fall inside those specific compositional ranges and rely on Fischer-Tropsch naphtha as the octane-boosting route. Formulations using different octane-boosting chemistries, different aromatics ceilings, or non-Fischer-Tropsch naphtha sources would need a separate freedom-to-operate check but are not automatically caught by this claim.
The IPC composition data shows only a handful of records in gas-turbine fuel crossover (F02C, 4 records) and gasification-route fuel components (C10J, 2 records), both far smaller than the dense C10L/C10G core. Low-sulfur marine-grade blends and non-aromatic RON-boosting co-blend chemistries also sit outside the main citation cluster despite being referenced in some of the most-cited records. These branches are worth a targeted search before filing, since low record counts can mean either genuine open space or a poor match to this particular search string.
Research Gasoline Blending and Octane Enhancement in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole gasoline blending and octane enhancement 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.