Alkali-Activated Binder Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
Patent landscape analysis of alkali-activated binder and low-carbon cement technology: filing trends, leading assignees, IPC composition and white space, based on 330 records to 2026.
Filing growth = 2021 (17 records) → 2024 (24); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 330 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What the alkali-activated binder patent record actually shows
Alkali-activated binders — geopolymer-type cements formed by reacting aluminosilicate precursors such as fly ash, slag or natural pozzolan with an alkaline activator — are one of the more mature routes to cutting the calcination-driven CO2 footprint of Portland cement. The 330 records in scope span 2015 through the 2026 cut-off and cluster overwhelmingly in C04B, the cement and refractories subclass, with smaller pockets of polymer and organic-chemistry classifications suggesting hybrid or admixture-side experimentation rather than a separate technology branch.
Filing has grown unevenly rather than smoothly: activity rose from 16 records in 2017 to a peak of 25 in 2023, with the 2021-to-2024 window showing a documented 41% increase. The most recent one to two years understate true filing activity because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures should be read as provisional floors, not a slowdown.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
The two charts below reconstruct filing momentum and the classification footprint of the 330 records in scope, using only the IPC subclasses and yearly counts returned by the search.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings climbed from 16 in 2017 to a peak of 25 in 2023, with a documented 41% rise between 2021 (17) and 2024 (24) — the most recent year that can be read as complete given an 18-month publication lag. 2025 and 2026 counts will continue to fill in as later publications surface.
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.
IPC subclass composition
C04B accounts for 99.1% of the 330 records, confirming this is a cement-and-refractories-centred field rather than a cross-cutting materials theme. Polymer-related subclasses (C08F, C08G, C08J, C08K) and organic-chemistry classes (C07C, C07D) each touch well under 15% of records, and B28B (shaping clay and cement products) covers only 2.4% — these are the smaller adjacent branches worth checking individually rather than assuming depth.
Shares are the percentage of the 330 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Low-Carbon Cement & Concrete: Alkali Activated Binder Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about low-carbon cement & concrete: alkali activated binder patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art and a current filing to benchmark against
US20260145999A1 — Brine sludge-activated natural pozzolan alkali-activated binder
A method of producing concrete by mixing natural pozzolan with an activator comprising sodium silicate and brine sludge to form an alkali-activated binder, then combining that binder with coarse and fine aggregate. The claim specifies a brine sludge density around 100 kg/m3, a sodium silicate-to-brine-sludge mass ratio near 2.5:1, and a detailed oxide composition window for the brine sludge (CaO, MgO, SrO, Fe2O3, SiO2, SO3, Na2O, BaO, Al2O3).Filed by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, published 2026-05-28 — illustrates how narrow, composition-window claims are being used to stake out specific waste-activator chemistries.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20140264140A1 | High-strength geopolymer composite cellular concrete | 184 |
| 2 | US6409819B1 | Alkali activated supersulphated binder | 169 |
| 3 | US6572698B1 | Activated aluminosilicate binder | 135 |
| 4 | US4859367A | Waste solidification and disposal method | 103 |
| 5 | CA2336077A1 | Activated aluminosilicate binder | 45 |
| 6 | KR101014869B1 | Alkali-activated binder with no cement including complex alkali-activated agents and mortar or concrete compo… | 44 |
| 7 | EP2067753A1 | Concrete Mix | 42 |
| 8 | WO2015020612A1 | Waste incinerator ash as aerating agent for the manufacture of lightweight construction materials | 36 |
| 9 | WO2000000447A1 | Alkali activated supersulphated binder | 30 |
| 10 | WO2009005205A1 | Alkali-activated binder with no cement, method for fabricating mortar using it, and method for fabricating al… | 29 |
Citation counts reward older, well-searched documents; treat the ranking as a map of foundational influence, not of which claims are commercially live today.
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
Read together, concentration, growth and classification data point to a field with an entrenched core and a genuinely open perimeter.
The top of the field is settled, the rest is not
Five assignees account for 162 of the 330 records in scope, and the leader alone holds 63. But the ranked leaders' combined share caps at 63.3% across the ten most active filers — meaning more than a third of the corpus sits with entities outside that group, a genuine long tail rather than a closed oligopoly.
Filing is accelerating, not plateauing
The count rose from 17 records in 2021 to 24 in 2024, with a peak of 25 in 2023. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the softer-looking 2025–2026 figures are an artefact of the data cut-off, not evidence of cooling interest.
A cement-class field with thin polymer crossover
Almost every record sits in C04B, cement and refractories. Polymer-side subclasses such as C08F (10.3%) and C08G (4.2%) show that hybrid organic-modifier approaches exist but remain a minority pursuit rather than a parallel track.
Europe and India lead receiving-office volume
EPO filings (62) edge out India (50) and the United States (46), with WIPO PCT filings (33) indicating a meaningful share of applicants are still pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than filing nationally first.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to low-carbon cement & concrete: alkali activated binder patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether you are scouting freedom-to-operate, tracking a competitor, or scoping new claims.
Map the long tail beyond the ranked leaders
With over a third of records held outside the ten most active filers, a freedom-to-operate check needs to look past the obvious names into the single- and few-filing entrants.
Explore the full assignee rankingProbe the polymer-crossover classes directly
C08F, C08G, C08J and C08K each cover a small minority of records — worth a targeted search if you are evaluating hybrid organic-modified binder chemistry rather than assuming the space is empty.
Run a focused IPC search in EurekaBenchmark new activator chemistries against recent filings
Composition-window claims like the brine sludge activator example show how narrow oxide and ratio specifications are being used to claim specific waste-stream inputs — a useful template for assessing novelty of a new activator source.
Compare against recent filings in EurekaFrequently asked questions
Filing is concentrated at the top: the leading assignee alone holds 63 of the 330 records in scope, and the top five assignees combined account for 162 records, or 49.1% of the total. That said, the ranked leaders' combined share reaches only 63.3% across the ten most active filers, so a substantial portion of the field — over a third of all records — sits outside that group with smaller or single-filing entrants. Anyone doing competitive tracking should watch both the concentrated leaders and this long tail, since new entrants keep appearing.
Filing grew from 17 records in 2021 to 24 in 2024, a documented 41% increase, with a peak of 25 records in 2023. The apparent dip in 2025 and 2026 is not a real slowdown — publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years are still filling in as applications publish. Read 2024 as the most reliable recent data point and treat later years as provisional.
In patent and technical literature the terms overlap heavily: geopolymer cement is generally a subset of alkali-activated binder technology, specifically referring to systems where the aluminosilicate precursor forms a polymeric gel network under alkaline activation. Broader alkali-activated binder claims can also cover supersulphated and other non-geopolymeric activation routes, which is why search strings for this space typically combine both terms with cement- and concrete-related claim language. The most-cited prior art in this dataset includes both framings, including granted patents on geopolymer composite cellular concrete and on supersulphated activated binders.
Almost all relevant filings sit in IPC subclass C04B, covering cements, concrete and refractories, which appears in 99.1% of the 330 records in scope. Smaller shares extend into polymer-related subclasses such as C08F and C08G, reflecting hybrid organic-modifier work, and into B28B, which covers shaping of clay and cement products, at 2.4% of records. A comprehensive freedom-to-operate search should not stop at C04B alone if the target formulation includes an organic admixture component.
The clearest white space sits in the polymer-crossover classes: C08F, C08G, C08J and C08K each cover well under 15% of the 330 records, meaning hybrid organic-modified alkali-activated binder chemistry is comparatively under-claimed relative to the core cement chemistry in C04B. B28B, covering shaping and forming of cement products, is smaller still at 2.4% of records, suggesting process and shaping claims layered on top of alkali-activated binder compositions remain relatively open. Any first claim in these branches should tie a specific polymer or shaping step directly to an alkali-activation composition to differentiate from the dense C04B core.
Research Low-Carbon Cement & Concrete: Alkali Activated Binder Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole low-carbon cement & concrete: alkali activated binder 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.