Jaw and Gyratory Crusher Patents: Leaders & Filing Trends 2026
- 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%.
- Filing kept climbing through 2024. activity rose from 15 filings in 2021 to 23 in 2024, a 53% increase over that span, before the two most recent years understate true volume due to publication lag.
- Almost everything sits in one class. 87.4% of records carry a B02C crushing/grinding/pulverising classification, with smaller but real footprints in animal feed, flotation and material testing.
Filing growth compares 2021 (15 records) with 2024 (23) — 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 676 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 676 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine core jaw and gyratory crusher mechanics — nip angle, liner wear profile, spider bearing, closed side setting, toggle mechanism — with the machine terms themselves. It is a mechanical-design corpus, not a materials-science one: the claims at stake are largely about how the crushing chamber is actuated, how the movable jaw or mantle is positioned, and how wear is managed over a service life, rather than about the metallurgy of the wear parts.
The record set spans 100 ranked assignees, receiving offices led by the United States, Australia and the EPO, and a filing trend that peaked so far in 2023. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend chart are still filling in and should not be read as a slowdown.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 676 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
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.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
B02C (crushing, grinding and pulverising) covers 87.4% of the 676 records, confirming this is overwhelmingly a core-mechanism corpus. The next largest classes are animal feed (A23K, 3.0%), food and beverage processing (A23L, 2.5%) and dimensional measurement (G01B, 2.5%) — evidence of crusher IP reaching into feed processing and in-chamber sizing measurement, not just the base machine.
Shares are the percentage of the 676 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Jaw and Gyratory Crusher Design with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about jaw and gyratory crusher design and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this landscape
Method and system for controlling a jaw crusher (US20160250642A1)
A jaw crusher control system positions a movable jaw against a stationary jaw using a hydraulic positioning device, driven by a signal from a crushing chamber level detector. The system computes a first closed side setting when the chamber is judged full of material, and a second closed side setting when the chamber is judged empty, letting the machine adjust its gap dynamically rather than run a fixed setting.Filed by Sandvik Intellectual Property AB, 2016-09-01.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6375105B1 | Jaw crusher toggle beam hydraulic relief and clearing | 98 |
| 2 | US20080041995A1 | Replaceable Segmented Wear Liner | 56 |
| 3 | US4060205A | Hydraulic accumulator for use with gyratory crushers and combination of such accumulator with a gyratory crus… | 56 |
| 4 | US5996916A | Cone crusher having positive head hold-down mechanism | 55 |
| 5 | US20100193618A1 | Modular ore processor | 54 |
| 6 | US6048382A | Method for direct reduction and upgrading of fine-grained refractory and earthy iron ores and slags | 54 |
| 7 | US2832547A | Geared gyratory crushers | 54 |
| 8 | US5718391A | Gyratory crusher having dynamically adjustable stroke | 53 |
| 9 | US7717365B2 | Degradation insert with overhang | 49 |
| 10 | WO2020049517A1 | Monitoring ore | 45 |
Citation counts are a signal of influence within this searched corpus, not a ranking of current commercial importance — they favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations.
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 read-throughs from the concentration, trend and classification data above.
The core mechanism is claimed densely at the top
With just five assignees holding more than half of all 676 records, the base jaw and gyratory crusher mechanism — toggle actuation, CSS control, liner retention — is occupied ground. New entrants filing on the base machine geometry are filing into dense prior art held by a small group.
Growth held up through the last complete filing year
Filing volume rose from 15 in 2021 to 23 in 2024, and the field's peak year so far is 2023 at 39. That is sustained interest in the mechanism, not a technology in decline — the apparent drop-off after 2024 is a publication-lag artefact, not a real one.
This is a core-mechanism corpus with feed-processing spillover
The overwhelming majority of records sit in B02C (crushing, grinding, pulverising), but smaller footprints in animal feed (A23K), food processing (A23L) and in-chamber measurement (G01B) show the same crusher claims reaching into adjacent processing and sensing applications.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to jaw and gyratory crusher design, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Sandvik Intellectual Property AB | SJOBECK ROGER | 3 |
| Sandvik Intellectual Property AB | LJUNGGREN KARIN | 3 |
| Sandvik Intellectual Property AB | ERIKSSON BENGT ARNE | 3 |
| Cargill Inc | ASCHAUER MARTIN N | 3 |
| Cargill Inc | ADKINS JESSICA | 3 |
| Sandvik Intellectual Property AB | BERN RICHARD | 2 |
| Ito Shokai KK | ITO KATSUHIRO | 2 |
| Ito Shokai KK | ISHIOKA MAKOTO | 2 |
Ten identified co-assignee pairs in this dataset, with the strongest links all centred on Sandvik-affiliated inventor teams — a sign of a stable in-house engineering group rather than cross-company joint filing.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
A ranked field of 100 assignees, with activity concentrated among a handful of established crusher OEMs and a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants.
One filer holds a clear lead
The leading assignee's 154 records sit well ahead of the field's fifth-place figure of 22 and tenth-place figure of 12 — a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one, typical of a mechanism space anchored by a dominant OEM.
Recent-year counts read low across the board
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including the field leader, shows zero filings in the latest year on record. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this reflects incomplete data for 2025-2026 rather than a genuine stop in filing activity by any of these companies.
Filing follows mining geography
The United States, Australia and the EPO lead receiving offices, with Canada, WIPO/PCT and India also represented in meaningful volume — a pattern consistent with where crushing equipment is manufactured and where mining and aggregates operations are concentrated.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Sandvik Intellectual Property AB | 0 | — |
| Metso Outotec Finland Oy | 0 | — |
| Sandvik Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| Terex GB Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| CEDARAPIDS INC | 0 | — |
| Omnigen Research LLC | 0 | — |
| Cargill Inc | 0 | — |
| Ito Shokai KK | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
The landscape points to where claim space is full and where it is not — the next step is testing a specific concept against it.
Map a specific mechanism against the leader's portfolio
If a design touches toggle actuation, CSS control or liner retention, check it against the leading assignee's claim set before committing engineering time to it.
Explore in EurekaTest white-space branches for a first claim
In-chamber sensing and liner wear monitoring show real but thin filing activity — worth a closer look before assuming the space is open.
Run a white space searchWatch the 2025-2026 revision
Recent-year counts will climb as publication catches up; re-check momentum by assignee in six to twelve months rather than treating the current zero as final.
Track this landscapeCommon questions on this landscape
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.
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.
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.
This Sandvik filing covers a jaw crusher control system that uses a crushing chamber level detector to drive a hydraulic positioning device, switching between a first closed side setting when the chamber reads full and a second when it reads empty. It blocks control schemes that tie hydraulic jaw positioning directly to a chamber-fullness signal in this two-state way. Designs that use a different sensing input, a continuously variable setting rather than two discrete states, or manual/non-hydraulic actuation sit outside its core claim language, though a freedom-to-operate check against the full claim set is the only way to confirm this for a specific design.
The classification data points to a few under-claimed branches relative to the dense core-mechanism filing: in-chamber feed size sensing, liner wear profile monitoring, and flotation-integrated crushing circuits all show up in the IPC composition but with far lower record counts than the base B02C mechanism claims. These are areas with documented market and processing relevance but thinner patent coverage, making them worth a targeted prior-art check before assuming they are already occupied.
Research Jaw and Gyratory Crusher Design in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole jaw and gyratory crusher design 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.