Direct Reduced Iron Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
A data-led look at direct reduced iron and hydrogen metallurgy patents from 2015 to 2026: filing trends, leading assignees, IPC composition, and the branches still open to file.
Filing growth = 2021 (255 records) → 2024 (179); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 2,816 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What the direct reduced iron patent record shows
Direct reduced iron (DRI) and hydrogen ironmaking sit at the centre of steel’s decarbonisation push, and the patent record reflects two decades of incremental process engineering rather than a single breakthrough. The dataset in scope spans 2,816 published records filed between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off, drawn from claims and titles referencing direct reduction, hydrogen-based reduction gas, and iron ore reduction chemistry under C21B and C22B. Most of the activity is process and furnace engineering, not new reduction chemistry — the classes that dominate are production and metal-extraction subclasses, not novel material compositions.
Filing activity rose steadily through the late 2010s, peaked in 2021, and has since eased — a pattern consistent with a technology that moved from pilot interest into a denser, more contested claim environment before growth moderated. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any chart will understate real filing volume.
Filing trend and technology composition
The two views below cover the same 2,816 records from different angles: when filings happened, and which parts of the process they claim.
A peak year, then a pull-back that predates the publication lag
Filings ran from 68 in 2017 to a peak of 255 in 2021, then eased to 179 by 2024 — a 30% decline over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as a continued fall.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
Furnace and production classes dominate; gas and separation stay in the tail
C21B (iron production) touches 76.5% of the 2,816 records in scope, with C22B and C21C well behind at 22.3% and 16.7%. Furnace hardware classes F27B and F27D sit near 13%, and separation processes (B01D) cover just 2.7% — a narrow slice given how central gas cleanup and off-gas handling are to hydrogen-based reduction.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,816 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Hydrogen Metallurgy & DRI: Direct Reduced Iron Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about hydrogen metallurgy & dri: direct reduced iron patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA recent filing that shows where claims are heading
Method for melting direct reduced iron and producing solid iron and civil-engineering material (JFE Steel, 2025)
The filing covers melting direct reduced iron while removing gangue efficiently: obtaining DRI from iron ore and a composition-adjusting material under a reducing atmosphere, melting it in an induction furnace with slag removal outside the vessel, and optionally refining the resulting molten iron. Process detail includes a charging-temperature window from the end of direct reduction down to ambient, and controlled gas blowing during melting.Filed by JFE Steel; published 2025-09-11 as US20250283185A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5730775A | Method for rapid reduction of iron oxide in a rotary hearth furnace | 115 |
| 2 | US5400358A | Continuous scrap preheating | 109 |
| 3 | US5599375A | Method for electric steelmaking | 80 |
| 4 | US5997596A | Oxygen-fuel boost reformer process and apparatus | 79 |
| 5 | US6027545A | Method and apparatus for producing direct reduced iron with improved reducing gas utilization | 76 |
| 6 | US20130081516A1 | Direct Production of Iron Slabs and Nuggets From Ore Without Pelletizing or Briquetting | 70 |
| 7 | US20040226406A1 | Method and apparatus for improved use of primary energy sources in integrated steel plants | 66 |
| 8 | US6524356B2 | Method and apparatus for producing reformed gases | 64 |
| 9 | US5972066A | Mixed bed iron reduction process | 64 |
| 10 | US6517605B1 | Start-up procedure for direct smelting process | 63 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations within this corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later filers, not of current commercial 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 numbers mean for filing strategy
Four figures from the dataset that matter more for decision-making than the raw counts alone.
The top five hold more than a third of the field
Five assignees account for 1,023 of the 2,816 records in scope, while the ranked leaders' list runs a full 100 companies deep with a long tail of single- and low-digit filers below them. That combination — a dense top and a wide tail — usually means core process claims are occupied but plenty of narrower application and equipment claims remain open.
Activity peaked in 2021 and has eased since
Filings ran from 68 in 2017 up to a peak of 255 in 2021, then declined to 179 by 2024 — a 30% pull-back over that span. Because 2025-26 figures are still filling in as publication catches up with filing, this should be read as a plateau after a peak, not a technology in decline.
Core iron-production claims dominate the classification mix
C21B covers 76.5% of the 2,816 records, far ahead of metal extraction (22.3%) and steelmaking (16.7%). Furnace and gas-handling subclasses sit in the 12-13% range, and separation processes cover only 2.7% — a gap worth noting given how much of hydrogen-based DRI depends on gas cleanup and recycling.
Filing offices split across China, the US and Europe
China leads receiving-office counts at 382, ahead of the United States at 361, the EPO at 281, WIPO/PCT filings at 253, India at 240 and South Korea at 178. The spread across six major offices suggests DRI process protection is being pursued as a multi-jurisdiction strategy rather than concentrated in one home market.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to hydrogen metallurgy & dri: direct reduced iron patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific follow-up questions for teams tracking freedom-to-operate or scouting acquisition targets in hydrogen metallurgy.
Map claim scope against the ranked leaders
With 36.3% of records held by five assignees, a claim-by-claim comparison against those portfolios will show which process steps are genuinely blocked versus merely crowded.
Explore assignee portfoliosTrack the furnace and gas-handling gap
Separation and furnace-accessory classes trail far behind core iron-production claims, which is where narrower, defensible filings are more likely to clear prior art.
Open the classification breakdownWatch the 2024-26 filings as they publish
The apparent pull-back after 2021 is still partly a publication-lag artefact; revisiting the trend once 2025 filings finish publishing will sharpen the read on real momentum.
Set a filing alertDirect reduced iron patents: common questions
The assignee ranking in this dataset lists 100 companies, and it is a long tail rather than a single dominant owner: the leader holds 433 records, but by fifth place that figure drops to 114 and by tenth place to 48. The top five combined account for 36.3% of all 2,816 records in scope, and the top ten for 50.4% — meaning half of all filing activity sits outside the top ten names. Practical due diligence should look at the full ranked list rather than assuming one or two firms control the field.
Filing activity rose from 68 records in 2017 to a peak of 255 in 2021, then eased to 179 by 2024, a 30% decline over that three-year span. Because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any chart are still incomplete and should not be read as evidence of a continued drop. The honest read is a plateau after a strong 2021 peak, not a technology losing momentum.
The dominant class is C21B, iron production including blast-furnace-adjacent processes, which touches 76.5% of the 2,816 records in scope. C22B (metal extraction and refining) and C21C (steelmaking) follow at 22.3% and 16.7%, with furnace hardware classes F27B and F27D each around 12-13%. Separation processes under B01D cover only 2.7% of records, a notably thin slice given how much gas cleanup and recycling matters to hydrogen-based reduction routes.
The gap between core production claims and supporting-process claims is the clearest signal: C21B sits at 76.5% of records while gas separation (B01D) sits at just 2.7%, and furnace-accessory classes trail both. That imbalance suggests off-gas handling, hydrogen recycling loops and furnace-accessory integration are less contested than the core reduction process itself. A first claim in that space would typically target a specific gas-recovery or heat-integration step tied to a named DRI process rather than the reduction chemistry itself.
That filing, from JFE Steel and published in September 2025, claims a specific sequence for melting direct reduced iron while removing gangue outside the induction furnace, including a defined charging-temperature window and controlled gas-blowing steps during melting. It does not claim direct reduction itself, so it does not block upstream DRI production. Companies working on downstream melting and slag-removal steps for DRI should check their process against the specific temperature-window and gas-blowing sequence claimed here, since that is the narrower area where overlap is most likely.
Research Hydrogen Metallurgy & DRI: Direct Reduced Iron Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole hydrogen metallurgy & dri: direct reduced iron patent landscape 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.