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 →Filing growth compares 2021 (32 records) with 2024 (4) — 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 284 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
This landscape covers 284 published patent records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine core gold cyanidation and carbon-in-leach or carbon-in-pulp process claims with a specific operating problem: cyanide consumption, preg-robbing, elution circuit design, carbon regeneration, oxygen addition, or leach residence time. It is a process-metallurgy field rather than a materials field — the claims are about how a plant runs, not what a novel reagent is made of.
Records are drawn from receiving offices spanning the major gold-mining jurisdictions, with the United States, Australia and Canada leading. Because <em>patent families</em> neutralise repeat filings of the same invention across jurisdictions, the family-based assignee ranking is the fairer read of who is actually active, rather than raw document counts.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
The dataset covers 284 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, giving a view of how gold leaching and adsorption claims have shifted since carbon-in-leach and resin-based circuits moved from pilot to commercial scale.
Filings rose from 3 in 2017 to a peak of 32 in 2021, then fell to 4 by 2024 — an 88% drop over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent years should not be read as a continued decline yet.
94.4% of the 284 records carry a C22B metal-extraction classification, with separation (B01D), catalysis/chemical processing (B01J) and flotation (B03D) each present in roughly 9-11% of records as supporting claims rather than standalone routes. Electrolytic recovery, water treatment and soil reclamation each sit under 4%, marking the thinnest-claimed adjacent branches.
Shares are the percentage of the 284 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about gold leaching and adsorption and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA gold-copper recovery circuit comprises an adsorption circuit and an elution circuit. The adsorption circuit receives a slurry containing gold and copper in a cyanide solution together with a resin adsorbent for adsorbing gold, copper and free cyanide, and includes a resin offtake that separates loaded resin into a first and a second portion. The elution circuit comprises a copper elution column, which receives the first portion of loaded resin and a copper eluant, followed by a gold elution column configured to receive the copper-eluted resin.Filed by Greengold Engineering Pty Ltd, published 2023-01-19.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6482373B1 | Process for treating ore having recoverable metal values including arsenic containing components | 65 |
| 2 | US5961833A | Method for separating and isolating gold from copper in a gold processing system | 59 |
| 3 | US5599515A | Method of removing mercury from solution | 44 |
| 4 | EP0508542A2 | Process for treating ore having recoverable metal values including arsenic containing components | 37 |
| 5 | US4610724A | Recovery of gold from refractory auriferous iron-containing sulphidic material | 35 |
| 6 | US20090071295A1 | Method to improve recovery of gold from double refractory gold ores | 32 |
| 7 | US20090019970A1 | Process for recovery of metal values from materials containing arsenic and/or antimony | 32 |
| 8 | WO2005100243A1 | A process for the removal of thiocyanate from effluent | 27 |
| 9 | US6248301B1 | Process for treating ore having recoverable metal values including arsenic containing components | 26 |
| 10 | GB2349876A | Recovering noble metals from ores using thiourea | 22 |
Citation counts favour older records in a searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on later filings, not of current commercial importance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
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 →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 →Read together, the concentration, trend and classification figures point to a field where core extraction chemistry is heavily claimed and adjacent processing steps are not.
The leading assignee holds 45 records on its own, and the top 5 combined hold 44.0% of all 284 records in scope. That leaves the majority of filings spread across a long tail of 77 further ranked entities, many with only one or two records.
Filings rose to a peak of 32 in 2021 and fell to 4 by 2024. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and should not be read as confirming a continued decline.
Metal extraction and refining (C22B) appears in 94.4% of the 284 records, far ahead of separation processes and flotation, each near 10%. Electrolytic recovery, water treatment and soil reclamation each sit under 4%, the thinnest-claimed branches in the set.
The United States leads receiving offices with 56 records, followed by Australia (47), Canada (37), WIPO/PCT (35), the EPO (31) and South Africa (15) — a spread that mirrors where large-scale gold mining and processing operations are concentrated.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to gold leaching and adsorption, with the prior art for and against each one.
The ranked assignee list spans 82 companies and institutes across the 284 records in scope. Filing is led by a small group of mining and metallurgical-technology specialists, but the majority of entities in the ranking hold only one or two records each.
The top-ranked assignee holds 45 of the 284 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 12 and tenth place at 9. That gap suggests a sustained, deliberate filing programme rather than opportunistic single filings.
After the leading assignee, filing counts drop off fast — fifth place holds 12 records and tenth place holds 9. The top 10 together hold 62.3% of all 284 records, leaving the remaining 72 ranked entities to split the rest.
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the whole dataset, and the strongest pairs cluster around a small group of research-institute and mining-technology partners. Most assignees, including several of the largest, file independently.
Among the most active historical filers, only one shows any record in the latest year captured, and it is a single filing. This is consistent with the broader post-2021 cooldown rather than any one leader stepping back specifically.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| SEABRIDGE GOLD INC | 1 | — |
| Barrick Gold Corporation | 0 | — |
| MAELGWYN MINERAL SERVICES AFRICA | 0 | — |
| SINGH ASHOK ADRIAN | 0 | — |
| COREM | 0 | — |
| Sherritt Inc | 0 | — |
| Dublin Institute of Technology | 0 | — |
| RIO TINTO TECH DEV | 0 | — |
The figures above describe the shape of the field. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going record by record.
The most-cited records in this set, including US6482373B1 and EP0508542A2, anchor refractory-ore pre-treatment claims that later filings build on. Any new circuit design touching arsenic-bearing or refractory ore treatment should be checked against these directly.
Run a claim chart in EurekaWO2023283700A1 and similar recent filings suggest resin-in-pulp elution sequencing is where active claiming continues even as overall filing volume has cooled since 2021.
Monitor this niche in EurekaElectrolytic recovery, wastewater treatment and soil reclamation each sit under 4% of the 284 records in scope, well below core extraction claims, making them the more open ground for a first-mover filing.
Draft a claim scaffold in EurekaThe ranking covers 82 companies and research institutes across the 284 records in scope, with the leading assignee holding 45 records. The top 5 assignees together account for 44.0% of all 284 records, and the top 10 account for 62.3%, so while filing is concentrated at the top there is still a long tail of entities with only one or two filings. This mix of a strong leader and a wide tail is typical of a field where core process claims are held by a few large mining and metallurgy specialists while smaller equipment and engineering firms file narrower circuit variants.
Carbon-in-leach (CIL) and carbon-in-pulp (CIP) are process routes where activated carbon is added directly to the cyanide leach slurry to adsorb dissolved gold, avoiding a separate leaching-then-adsorption step. It dominates because it is the commercial default for most modern gold plants, and the patent data reflects this: 94.4% of the 284 records in scope carry a C22B metal-extraction classification tied to leaching and recovery processes. Most recent innovation documented in this dataset refines this established route — oxygen addition, residence time control, cyanide consumption reduction — rather than replacing it outright.
Preg-robbing occurs when carbonaceous material naturally present in the ore adsorbs dissolved gold before it can reach the intended carbon or resin adsorbent, effectively stealing recovered value. It is one of the search terms defining this dataset's scope, and the most-cited records in the set — including US6482373B1 and its EPO counterpart EP0508542A2 — specifically address treating ore with recoverable metal values including arsenic-containing components, a common cause of refractory, preg-robbing behaviour. This makes pre-treatment of refractory ore one of the most heavily anchored claim areas in the field.
The dataset does not show a wholesale shift; C22B extraction claims still cover 94.4% of the 284 records and carbon-based routes remain the dominant documented technology. However, resin-based elution circuits appear as an active, more recent branch — the representative record WO2023283700A1, filed in 2023, describes a resin adsorption and dual-column elution circuit for separating gold and copper. This suggests resin-in-pulp is a growing niche within the broader field rather than a replacement for carbon-based adsorption at this point.
Based on IPC composition, the thinnest-claimed adjacent branches are electrolytic metal recovery (C25C, 3.9% of the 284 records), water and wastewater treatment tied to leach circuits (C02F, 3.5%), and soil or contaminated-land reclamation (B09C, 3.2%). All three sit far below the 94.4% claim density in core C22B extraction, and only 10 co-assignee pairs exist across the whole dataset, meaning collaborative filing in these adjacent areas is still rare. A first filer combining a defined leach-circuit output stream with one of these adjacent process steps would be working in genuinely thin prior art rather than contesting the anchored core claims.
Go past this page: query the whole gold leaching and adsorption 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.