Low-Carbon Cement Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing activity has plateaued, not accelerated. the peak year so far is 2023 at 8 families, and the 2022 midpoint of 3 shows growth flattening well before the most recent (partial) year.
- Almost everything sits under one IPC subclass. C04B accounts for all 50 records, with only scattered activity in metal extraction, grinding and separation processes — the surrounding process steps are thinly claimed.
- The most-cited prior art predates the current filing wave. the top-cited record (99 citations) is a 2007 blended cement composition, meaning today's activity is building on decade-old foundational claims rather than replacing them.
Filing growth compares 2021 (6 records) with 2024 (4) — 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 50 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this patent set covers
This landscape tracks patent families combining low-carbon cement, supplementary cementitious material (SCM) and green cement terminology with process-specific claims — calcined clay processing, clinker reduction, low-energy grinding and general manufacturing process language — restricted to the C04B7 cement family of IPC codes and its sub-groups. It captures 50 published families filed between 2015 and mid-2026, the point at which this dataset was cut off.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend line are undercounts of true filing activity; treat the most recent one to two years as a floor, not a ceiling.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 50-family dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and where those families sit across the IPC classification system.
A flat-to-declining filing curve
Filings rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 8 in 2023, with the 2022 midpoint at 3 — a trajectory that plateaus rather than compounds. Combined with the recent-year momentum table showing most tracked assignees at zero filings in the latest year, the evidence points to a technology area that saw a burst of activity mid-decade rather than sustained acceleration.
Concentrated almost entirely in C04B
All 50 records classify under C04B (ceramics, cement and refractories). Adjacent classifications appear only in small numbers — C22B (metal extraction, 5 records), and single-digit presence in B01D (separation), B02C (grinding) and C01B (inorganic compounds) — indicating that claims on the upstream and downstream process steps around cement chemistry itself remain comparatively open.
Shares are the percentage of the 50 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 Manufacturing Process with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about low-carbon cement manufacturing process and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited prior art and a representative recent filing
Supplementary cementitious material composition and method of making (US20260035297A1, ENVICORE INC., filed 2026-02-05)
A method for producing supplementary cementitious material. The method comprises contacting a mineral stream with an acid to form an activated mineral stream; reducing the moisture content of the mineral stream; and comminuting the mineral stream to form a supplementary cementitious material. A method of extracting a metal from a mineral stream. The method comprises contacting a mineral stream with an acid to form an activated mineral stream; filtering the activated mineral stream to extract leach liquor comprising the metal; and neutralizing the acid.Note the dual-purpose structure: the same acid-activation step is claimed both for producing an SCM and for extracting a metal by-product, which broadens the claim's commercial reach beyond cement alone.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20070095255A1 | Blended cement composition | 99 |
| 2 | US10233116B1 | Activitation of natural pozzolans | 27 |
| 3 | WO2020146551A1 | Activation of natural pozzolan and use thereof | 26 |
| 4 | US20200123054A1 | Activitation of natural pozzolans | 22 |
| 5 | US10494298B1 | Cement-SCM compositions and methods and systems for their manufacture | 16 |
| 6 | WO2007053398A1 | Blended cement composition | 14 |
| 7 | US20210309570A1 | Cement-SCM compositions and methods and systems for their manufacture | 12 |
| 8 | WO2012115500A1 | A green engineered cementitious composite | 8 |
| 9 | US20220267208A1 | Production of supplementary cementitious materials through wet carbonation method | 7 |
| 10 | EP4015478A1 | Method of calcining a clay material | 5 |
Citation counts accumulate over time within this searched corpus, so older records such as the 2007 blended cement composition patent lead by a wide margin; this reflects age and influence, not present-day 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 strategy
Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are read alongside filing dates and classification codes.
Activity crested, it did not compound
A rise from zero in 2017 to a peak of 8 filings in 2023, with 2022 sitting at only 3, describes a technology that had a filing surge rather than a steady climb. Recent-year momentum figures showing most named assignees flat or down to zero support the same reading.
One subclass carries the whole dataset
Every record in this set classifies under C04B. The handful of records touching C22B, B01D, B02C or C01B suggest that metal-extraction by-products, filtration and grinding equipment tied to cement manufacture are claimed far less densely than the cement chemistry itself.
Foundational art predates the recent filing wave
The most-cited record in the corpus is a blended cement composition patent from 2007, cited 99 times — far ahead of the next tier of natural-pozzolan activation patents cited in the twenties. New filers are building on, and likely designing around, claims that are now roughly two decades old.
Filing is US-anchored with a real international tail
The United States receives the largest single share of filings, followed by PCT applications and Canada; Europe, India and Australia each hold smaller but non-trivial counts. That spread indicates applicants are pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than treating this as a single-market technology.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to low-carbon cement manufacturing process, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape and where the gaps sit
The named assignees in the recent-momentum data show mostly flat or declining filing in the latest tracked year, consistent with the plateau visible in the overall trend.
Even the most active named assignee is barely filing
Holcim Technology shows a single filing in the latest year with flat year-on-year momentum — the strongest recent-activity figure in the dataset. Every other tracked assignee, including Roman Cement, Envirotech Cement, Empire Technology Development, Solidia Technologies and HeidelbergCement, shows zero filings in the latest year.
Collaboration is sparse and individual-led
Only 7 co-assignee pairs appear across the 50 families, and the strongest pairing links two named inventors rather than two corporate assignees. This is a field where most families are filed by a single assignee working alone rather than through joint ventures or co-development.
Influence is concentrated in a small number of older families
The most-cited records cluster around natural-pozzolan activation and blended cement compositions, several sharing near-identical titles across different filing years from the same lineage. New entrants are more likely to encounter these families in a freedom-to-operate search than any recent filing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Holcim Technology Ltd. | 1 | 0% |
| Roman Cement LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Envirotech Cement, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Empire Technology Development LLC | 0 | — |
| Solidia Technologies, Inc. | 0 | — |
| HeidelbergCement AG | 0 | — |
| MUELLER DANIEL F | 0 | — |
| Excell Technologies LLC | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
This landscape identifies the pattern; the next steps depend on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing or new filing strategy.
Run a claim-level clearance search
The 2007 blended-cement family and the pozzolan-activation lineage carry the highest citation weight in this corpus and are the most likely collision point for a new filing in SCM composition or acid-activation steps.
Search prior art in EurekaMap the under-claimed process branches
Metal extraction, grinding equipment and filtration steps tied to cement manufacture show only single-digit representation against 50 core C04B records, suggesting narrower but clearer paths to a grantable claim.
Explore white space in EurekaWatch for renewed filing momentum
With most named assignees flat or at zero in the latest tracked year, a shift back toward active filing by any single assignee would be a meaningful early signal worth monitoring.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaCommon questions on low-carbon cement patents
No single assignee dominates this dataset. Holcim Technology shows the strongest recent-year activity with a single filing and flat year-on-year momentum, while other named assignees such as Roman Cement, Envirotech Cement, Empire Technology Development, Solidia Technologies and HeidelbergCement each show zero filings in the most recent tracked year. The 50 families in this landscape are spread thinly rather than concentrated under one or two large portfolios, and 7 co-assignee pairs is a small number for a field this size — most families appear to be filed by a single assignee rather than jointly.
The filing trend in this dataset plateaus rather than accelerates: activity rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 8 families in 2023, with the 2022 midpoint sitting at only 3. Recent-year momentum figures for named assignees are mostly flat or at zero, reinforcing that filing has not kept climbing past its 2023 peak. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the very latest years will always look lower than they eventually turn out to be, so this should be read as an early plateau signal rather than a confirmed decline.
The highest-cited record in this corpus is a 2007 filing for a blended cement composition, cited 99 times — far ahead of the next tier of patents, which cover activation of natural pozzolans and are cited in the twenties. That gap means the field's most influential prior art predates the bulk of recent filing activity by well over a decade. Anyone doing freedom-to-operate work in SCM or blended-cement composition claims should treat this 2007 family as a starting point for clearance searching.
The United States receives the largest share of filings in this dataset at 18, followed by PCT (WIPO) applications at 9 and Canada at 8. Europe, India and Australia hold smaller but still meaningful counts. This spread indicates that companies working in this space are pursuing protection across multiple jurisdictions rather than filing in a single home market, which matters for anyone scoping a clearance search or licensing negotiation.
All 50 records in this dataset classify under the core C04B cement subclass, while adjacent process areas — metal extraction and refining, filtration and separation, and low-energy grinding — appear in only single digits. That imbalance suggests the core cement composition and activation chemistry is densely claimed, but the surrounding process steps, such as acid-activation of mineral streams, metal by-product recovery, and moisture-reduction pre-treatment, are comparatively open. A first claim in one of these adjacent branches, tied to a specific process parameter rather than a broad composition, is more likely to clear existing art.
Research Low-Carbon Cement Manufacturing Process in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole low-carbon cement manufacturing process 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.