Jaw and gyratory crusher patents: who holds the toggle and liner claims, and where filing is still open
Concentrated at the top. the five most active filers together hold 54.4% of all 676 records in scope, and the top ten hold 65.8%. Filings rose from 10 in 2017 to a peak of 39 in 2023, with the 2021-to-2024 span alone showing a 53% increase (15 to 23). The final two years in the chart are partial because of publication lag and should not be read as a decline.
- 1SANDVIK INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AB154
- 2METSO OUTOTEC FINLAND OY105
- 3SANDVIK LTD62
- 4TEREX GB LTD25
- 5TEREX USA LLC22
See the full jaw and gyratory crusher design analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions on this landscape
Who holds the most patents on jaw and gyratory crusher design?
One assignee leads clearly, with 154 of the 676 records in this dataset, well ahead of the fifth-place figure of 22 and tenth-place figure of 12. The top five assignees combined hold 54.4% of all records, and the top ten hold 65.8%, so the base mechanism — toggle actuation, closed side setting control, liner retention — is claimed densely by a small group of established crusher OEMs. Anyone designing around the core machine geometry should expect to run into this group's prior art first.
Is jaw and gyratory crusher patent filing growing or slowing down?
Filing grew over the last complete comparison window, rising from 15 filings in 2021 to 23 in 2024, a 53% increase. The single busiest year so far is 2023, with 39 filings. The 2025 and 2026 figures look lower only because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months — they will revise upward as more filings publish, so they should not be read as an actual slowdown.
What technology areas does this crusher patent set actually cover?
The large majority of records, 87.4% of all 676, carry a B02C classification for crushing, grinding and pulverising equipment — this is fundamentally a core-mechanism corpus. Smaller but consistent footprints appear in animal feed processing (3.0%), food and beverage processing (2.5%), and dimensional measurement (2.5%), showing that some crusher claims extend into feed sizing and in-chamber sensing applications rather than staying purely mechanical.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Jaw and Gyratory Crusher Design covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.