Hydrophobic Adsorbents Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- Filing momentum has cooled sharply. the peak year (2021, 5 filings) gave way to a -80% drop by 2024, the last complete filing year in this dataset.
- One leader sits well ahead of a long tail. the top assignee holds 17 records against a fifth-place count of 5 and a tenth-place count of 3 across 36 ranked companies.
- Claim density clusters in catalysis, not separation hardware. B01J (chemical/physical processes & catalysis) touches 75.9% of the 79 records in scope, far ahead of B01D separation-process claims at 15.2%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (5 records) with 2024 (1) — 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.
What this dataset covers
This landscape tracks 79 published patent families filed against a search built around hydrophobic zeolite adsorbents, high-silica zeolite formulations and VOC adsorbent claims, narrowed to documents that also address water competition, adsorption capacity, hydrothermal stability, regeneration cycles, coking or binder selection. The scope runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, though publication lag of roughly 18 months means the final one to two years are still filling in.
Filing activity is concentrated in refining and petrochemical catalysis rather than pure gas-separation engineering, and receiving-office data points to the United States, Europe and Japan as the primary filing venues, with China and Canada following.
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 79-record dataset: the year-by-year filing count, and the IPC subclasses those records fall under.
A filing peak that has since fallen off
Filings rose to a peak of 5 in 2021, then fell to 1 by 2024 — an 80% decline over that three-year span. Because 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete due to publication lag, this dataset cannot support a claim that filing has kept falling past 2024; it only supports the drop already measured through that year.
Catalysis claims dominate; separation hardware is a minority share
B01J (chemical/physical processes and catalysis) appears in 75.9% of the 79 records, with C07C, C01B and C10G — acyclic/carbocyclic compounds, inorganic compounds and hydrocarbon refining — each present in roughly a third of records. B01D, the subclass most associated with separation-process hardware itself, appears in just 15.2%, and polymer-related classes C08G and C08K each sit at 6.3%. Records commonly carry more than one class, so these shares sum above 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 79 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Hydrophobic Adsorbents for Humid Gas Streams with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about hydrophobic adsorbents for humid gas streams and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this space
US5380690A — Cracking catalyst for the production of light olefins
A cracking catalyst for the production of light olefins comprises 0-70% clay, 5-99% inorganic oxides and 1-50% zeolite, where the zeolite is a mixture of 0-25 wt% REY or high-silica Y zeolite and 75-100 wt% phosphorus- and rare-earth-containing high-silica zeolite with a pentasil structure. The catalyst is claimed to deliver higher hydrothermal activity-stability, conversion level and C2-C4 olefin yield in cracking reactions compared with catalysts using HZSM-5 zeolite as the active component.Filed by China Petro-Chemical Corporation, published 1995-01-10; cited 225 times, the second-highest citation count in this dataset.
View full record →| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4297328A | Three-way catalytic process for gaseous streams | 299 |
| 2 | US5380690A | Cracking catalyst for the production of light olefins | 225 |
| 3 | US5326465A | Process for the production of LPG rich in olefins and high quality gasoline | 192 |
| 4 | US6211104B1 | Catalyst for catalytic pyrolysis process for the production of light olefins and the preparation thereof | 166 |
| 5 | US5670037A | Process for producing light olefins by catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons | 96 |
| 6 | US20030166453A1 | Stabilized dual zeolite single particle catalyst composition and a process thereof | 83 |
| 7 | US20070100185A1 | Synthesis of chabazite-containing molecular sieves and their use in the conversion of oxygenates to olefins | 79 |
| 8 | US6478849B1 | Vapor recovery system for fuel storage tank | 73 |
| 9 | US4931267A | Process for preparing a high silica zeolite having the faujasite topology, ECR-32 | 70 |
| 10 | US4621161A | Oxygenate conversion over activated zeolite catalyst | 66 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside this corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on later filings, 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 a filing decision
Three findings a reader would not get from browsing the ranking table alone.
One assignee is well ahead, but the ranking itself is thin
The leading assignee holds 17 records against 5 at fifth place and 3 at tenth, across 36 ranked companies total. That gap suggests a single filer with an entrenched program, but the ranking is not a top-50 or top-100 list — it is the entire set the data endpoint returns for this search.
Peak filing has passed, at least through the last complete year
2021 was the peak year at 5 filings; by 2024, the last year unaffected by publication lag, filings had dropped to 1 — an 80% decline. Whether that trajectory continues cannot be read from 2025-2026 data, which is still incomplete.
Most activity is catalytic, not mechanical separation
B01J (catalysis and chemical/physical processes) appears in three-quarters of the 79 records, while B01D — the subclass tied most directly to separation-process hardware — appears in only 15.2%. That split points to where the claim pressure actually sits: on the adsorbent chemistry itself rather than the equipment that houses it.
Co-filing is limited and internally clustered
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest pairing links a parent company with its own research institute rather than an external partner. Cross-company joint filing is rare in this space so far.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to hydrophobic adsorbents for humid gas streams, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
Filing activity concentrates around a small set of refining and chemicals majors, with a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants.
A refining major with the deepest single filing program
The top-ranked assignee's filings sit heavily in catalytic cracking and high-silica zeolite chemistry, consistent with the dataset's overall tilt toward B01J catalysis claims rather than separation hardware.
A cluster of petrochemical and specialty-chemical filers
Below the leader, filing counts drop quickly — fifth place holds 5 records and tenth place holds 3 — indicating a small group of companies with sustained but modest programs rather than a second dominant player.
No leading assignee shows fresh activity in the most recent tracked year
Every one of the top assignees by cumulative volume shows zero filings in the latest year captured, consistent with the broader -80% decline measured between 2021 and 2024 — though recent-year counts are also the ones most affected by publication lag.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| ExxonMobil Chemical Patents Inc. | 0 | — |
| China Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec Group) | 0 | — |
| Research Institute of Petroleum Processing, Sinopec | 0 | — |
| UOP LLC | 0 | — |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | 0 | — |
| ExxonMobil Technology & Engineering Company | 0 | — |
| Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Union Carbide Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The ranking and IPC breakdown answer who and what; the next questions are usually where to file and how to design around existing claims.
Map claim scope against the most-cited records
The five most-cited records in this dataset, several tied to catalytic cracking and light-olefin production, define much of the prior art a new filing has to clear. Reading their claim language against your own adsorbent chemistry is the fastest way to find real overlap versus apparent overlap.
Explore citing records in Eureka →Check the under-claimed branches before drafting
Binder selection, regeneration-cycle methods and polymer-matrix supports all sit at low IPC share in this dataset. That is not proof they are open, but it is a reasonable place to start a freedom-to-operate check before committing claim language.
Run a white space search in Eureka →Common questions on hydrophobic adsorbent patents
One assignee leads with 17 records in this 79-record dataset, well ahead of the fifth-ranked company at 5 records and the tenth-ranked at 3. The ranking covers 36 companies total and is the complete set returned for this search, not a top-50 or top-100 shortlist. Filing activity from the leader concentrates in catalytic cracking and high-silica zeolite formulations rather than standalone separation hardware, which lines up with the wider dataset's tilt toward B01J catalysis claims.
Filings peaked at 5 in 2021 and had fallen to 1 by 2024, an 80% decline over that three-year window. 2024 is the last year in this dataset that can be treated as complete, because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in. Based on the complete data through 2024, momentum has clearly cooled from its 2021 peak, though it would be premature to describe the trend beyond that year.
US5380690A claims a cracking catalyst combining clay, inorganic oxides and a zeolite blend of REY or high-silica Y zeolite with phosphorus- and rare-earth-containing high-silica pentasil zeolite, aimed at improved hydrothermal stability and light-olefin yield. It is the second most-cited record in this dataset at 225 citations, which signals strong influence over later catalytic cracking filings rather than automatic blocking power over every hydrophobic adsorbent application. Whether it blocks a specific new filing depends on how closely that filing's zeolite composition and process claims overlap with the specific mixture ratios and pentasil structure recited here — a claim-by-claim comparison is the only reliable way to check.
B01J, covering chemical and physical processes plus catalysis, appears in 75.9% of the 79 records in scope, making it the dominant classification by a wide margin. C07C, C01B and C10G — organic compounds, inorganic compounds and hydrocarbon refining, respectively — each appear in roughly a third of records, while B01D, tied to separation-process hardware specifically, appears in just 15.2%. Because records often carry multiple IPC codes, these percentages sum to well over 100%, but the pattern is consistent: claim pressure sits mostly on adsorbent chemistry, not on the equipment around it.
The lowest IPC shares in this dataset point to binder selection for hydrothermal stability, regeneration-cycle methods and polymer-matrix adsorbent supports (C08G and C08K classes, each at 6.3% of records) as comparatively under-claimed relative to the dominant catalysis classes. Co-assignee data also shows only 10 collaboration pairs across the whole dataset, most of them internal to a single corporate group, suggesting limited cross-company joint development so far. Low claim density in a subclass is not proof of open ground on its own, but combined with thin collaboration activity it is a reasonable starting point for a freedom-to-operate check.
Research Hydrophobic Adsorbents for Humid Gas Streams in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole hydrophobic adsorbents for humid gas streams 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.