Low-Carbon Cement Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing is still accelerating, not maturing. Growth from zero filings in 2017 to a peak of 7 families in 2025 means claim space is being staked out now, not settled.
- India and the US dominate receiving offices. 14 India filings and 11 US filings versus single digits everywhere else points to where durability claims are actually being contested.
- Ownership is fragmented, not consolidated. Across 46 families no single assignee shows sustained recent-year momentum, leaving durability and resistance mechanisms open to new entrants.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 46 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families that combine low-carbon cement chemistry — supplementary cementitious material, green cement, low-clinker formulations — with durability-facing claims: carbonation resistance, chloride resistance, and general durability testing under IPC classes covering cement, alkaline-earth compounds, and material analysis. It excludes filings that address only strength or cost without a durability or resistance claim.
The corpus is small — 46 published families since the search window opened — which is itself informative: durability-specific claims layered on top of low-carbon cement chemistry are a narrow, recently active niche rather than an established sub-field with settled precedent.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 46 families: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filings accelerate from a standing start
Zero filings in 2017 rising to 3 by the 2022 midpoint and 7 at the 2025 peak (2026 is partial at 6) shows a technology area still building rather than plateauing. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true 2025–2026 volume is understated in this chart.
Claims concentrate in cement chemistry, with testing as the second cluster
C04B (cement, ceramics and refractories) covers all 46 records by design of the search, but the second-largest cluster is G01N (material analysis and testing) at 5 records — evidence that durability verification methods are being claimed alongside the materials themselves. Smaller clusters in C01F (alkaline-earth compounds), B29C (plastics shaping) and single-digit appearances in biocides, separation, alloys and textile dyeing point to durability claims reaching into adjacent, non-obvious material classes.
Shares are the percentage of the 46 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 Reliability and Durability with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about low-carbon cement reliability and durability and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this corpus
Method for producing supplementary cementitious material
A method for producing a supplementary cementitious material from concrete waste and similar materials includes providing a starting material comprising hydrated cement and aggregate comprising silicate and/or alumino-silicate, hydrothermal treatment of that starting material to obtain a hydrothermally activated material, and carbonation of the hydrothermally activated material to provide the supplementary cementitious material, together with the resulting hydraulic binder and its uses.Filed by HSUSTAINABILITY GMBH, published 2024-10-24 as US20240351947A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US8114214B2 | Methods and compositions using calcium carbonate | 126 |
| 2 | US8062418B2 | Methods and compositions using calcium carbonate | 92 |
| 3 | US8932400B2 | Methods and compositions using calcium carbonate | 23 |
| 4 | US10494298B1 | Cement-SCM compositions and methods and systems for their manufacture | 16 |
| 5 | EP2842925A1 | Calcium sulfoaluminate composite binders | 6 |
| 6 | WO2015032484A1 | Calcium sulfoaluminate composite binders | 5 |
| 7 | US20160214892A1 | Calcium sulfoaluminate composite binders | 5 |
| 8 | CN115246720A | 一种黄土路基路面沉陷用发泡低碳水泥复合注浆材料及其应用 | 4 |
| 9 | WO2020223785A1 | Hemp straw ash as a supplementary cementitious material | 4 |
| 10 | US11655186B2 | Activitation of natural pozzolans | 2 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations within this corpus — treat them as a measure of influence on later filers, not of current commercial relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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-outs from the trend and citation data that matter more than the raw counts themselves.
The field is early, not saturated
A near-zero start followed by acceleration to a 2025 peak, with the 2022 midpoint at only 3 filings, means the durability-claim space around low-carbon cement is still being defined. Filing now competes against a shallow prior-art base rather than a dense one.
Influence sits with calcium carbonate chemistry, not with newer SCM routes
The most-cited records in this corpus are calcium carbonate composition patents, cited well above the rest of the set. Newer supplementary-cementitious-material and carbonation-based approaches have not yet accumulated comparable citation weight, which is expected given their later filing dates rather than lower importance.
Contest is concentrated in two receiving offices
India and the United States together account for the large majority of receiving-office activity, with Australia, Europe, China and WIPO trailing at single digits. A filing strategy built only around US or European precedent will miss where most of the activity is actually happening.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to low-carbon cement reliability and durability, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and how concentrated is ownership
With 46 families spread across a wide assignee list and no single organisation showing sustained recent-year filing, this is a fragmented field with room for new entrants to establish position.
Instituto Politecnico Nacional Loreto shows the only live momentum
Among tracked assignees, only one shows a filing in the most recent year; established names including HeidelbergCement, Calera and Cemex-adjacent players show zero recent-year filings in this specific durability niche.
Co-filing is rare, not structural
The dataset shows only a single recurring co-assignee pairing, between an engineering technology firm and an individual inventor. Cross-organisation collaboration is not yet a pattern in this niche.
Legacy cement companies hold early positions but aren't renewing them
Names like HeidelbergCement and Cementos Argos appear in the assignee list but register zero filings in the latest year, suggesting durability-specific claim activity has shifted toward smaller and academic filers.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Instituto Politecnico Nacional Loreto | 1 | — |
| HeidelbergCement | 0 | — |
| Empire Technology Development LLC | 0 | — |
| Calera Corporation | 0 | — |
| Roman Cement, LLC | 0 | — |
| CEMENTOS ARGOS | 0 | — |
| Invico Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Yangzhou Polytechnic University | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The landscape above answers what has been filed. The next questions are what is defensible, what is open, and what a specific claim would need to look like to clear the existing art.
Map freedom-to-operate against the top-cited families
The calcium carbonate composition patents carry the heaviest citation weight in this corpus. Any new carbonation-resistance claim should be checked against their claim scope before drafting.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaTrack the fragmented assignee field for acquisition or licensing signals
With no dominant filer and legacy cement majors showing no recent activity, smaller and academic assignees may be acquisition or licensing targets before the field consolidates.
Monitor assignee activity in EurekaDraft into the under-claimed durability mechanisms
Sulfate attack, freeze-thaw and chloride-ingress modelling for blended cements show thin filing density relative to core cement chemistry — a lower-risk entry point for new claims.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
This landscape tracks 46 published patent families that combine low-carbon cement chemistry — supplementary cementitious material, green cement, low-clinker formulations — with a durability-facing claim such as carbonation resistance or chloride resistance. That is a narrow niche count, not the total for low-carbon cement generally, since filings addressing only strength or cost without a durability angle are excluded. The dataset covers 2015 through mid-2026, with the most recent year understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
Ownership in this niche is fragmented rather than concentrated: no single assignee shows sustained filing across recent years. Legacy cement companies including HeidelbergCement and Cementos Argos hold positions in the broader assignee list but show zero filings in the latest tracked year for this specific durability-and-resistance combination. The only assignee with a filing in the most recent year is an academic institution, which suggests commercial durability claims here are still up for grabs rather than locked up by incumbents.
India and the United States are the two dominant receiving offices, with 14 and 11 filings respectively, well ahead of Australia, Europe, China and WIPO PCT filings which each sit in the low single digits. A durability-and-resistance filing or freedom-to-operate strategy built only around US or European precedent would miss where most of the activity in this specific niche is actually occurring. This split also suggests regional standards or infrastructure demand, particularly in India, may be driving durability-specific claim activity.
It is still accelerating. Filings moved from zero in 2017 to 3 by the 2022 midpoint and to a peak of 7 in 2025, with 2026 already showing 6 filings despite the year being incomplete in this dataset. That trajectory, combined with a small total corpus of 46 families, indicates an early-stage niche where claim space is being actively defined rather than a settled or saturated area of prior art.
US20240351947A1, assigned to HSUSTAINABILITY GMBH and published 2024-10-24, claims a method for producing supplementary cementitious material from concrete waste through hydrothermal activation followed by carbonation. It sits directly in the carbonation-based SCM production route, meaning any new filing using a similar hydrothermal-then-carbonation sequence on demolition or concrete waste should be checked against its specific claim scope. It does not block SCM production routes that skip hydrothermal activation or use different waste feedstocks, which is one of the areas worth checking for design-around room.
Research Low-Carbon Cement Reliability and Durability in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole low-carbon cement reliability and durability 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.