Metal-Organic Framework Crystallization Patent Landscape 2026
- 28 families, one flat trend. Filings peaked at 8 in 2017 and had fallen to a midpoint of 4 by 2022 — this is a narrow, non-growing claim space, not an emerging boom.
- Composition claims are twice as dense as everything else. C01B and C07F each hold 14 of the 28 records, while process-integration subclasses like drying, electrolytic production and monitoring sit at 2-3 records apiece.
- The US receives more than half of all filings. 15 of 28 records route through the USPTO, well ahead of PCT, Australia, Europe, Canada and India combined.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 records) with 2024 (1) — 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.
What this landscape covers
Metal-organic framework crystallization control spans the methods used to govern nucleation, crystal growth and final morphology of MOFs and related porous coordination polymers — the difference between a usable, uniform crystal population and an unpredictable batch. This landscape isolates the 28 patent families that combine MOF or porous-coordination-polymer terminology with explicit crystallization, nucleation or morphology-control claim language, filtered to the IPC classes covering inorganic compounds, organometallics and crystal growth from solution.
That scope deliberately excludes filings that mention MOFs only as an end-use material without claiming control over how the crystal forms. The result is a narrow but purpose-built view of who is claiming the process itself, rather than of MOF patenting in general.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Twenty-eight families is a small enough set that every subclass and every year matters individually; the shape of the trend and the IPC split below are the whole population, not a sample.
Filings peaked in 2017 and have not recovered
Filings hit 8 in 2017, the peak so far, then eased toward a 2022 midpoint of 4 — a flat-to-declining pattern rather than a growth curve. The final year or two will always look lower than they will eventually settle, because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months.
Composition claims dominate, monitoring and integration lag
C01B and C07F each hold 14 of the 28 records, meaning inorganic-compound and organometallic composition claims cover the bulk of this landscape. B01J (catalysis/process, 10 records) is the next tier; B82Y, C25B, F26B, G01N and H01M each sit at 2-3 records, marking them as thin rather than settled.
Shares are the percentage of the 28 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Metal-Organic Framework Crystallization with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about metal-organic framework crystallization and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records other filers build on
Freestanding metal-organic framework (MOF) aerogels and preparation
An aerogel is formed by preparing metal-organic framework (MOF) aerogels by preparing a porous solid comprising a metal precursor for the metal-organic framework (MOF) aerogels, and transforming the metal precursor into the MOF by reacting the porous solid with organic ligands mixed with a solvent. The solvent is then removed by supercritical extraction and drying.Filed by The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, published 2020-07-02. The claimed sequence is specific to a metal-precursor-to-aerogel route via supercritical extraction, not to MOF aerogel formation generally.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20210155649A1 | Ultra-thin ni-fe-MOF nanosheet, preparation method and use thereof | 49 |
| 2 | WO2018031733A1 | Solid-state crystallization of metal organic frameworks within mesoporous meterials methods and hybrid materi… | 43 |
| 3 | US20190169036A1 | Solid-state crystallization of metal organic frameworks within mesoporous materials methods and hybrid materi… | 36 |
| 4 | US20200102337A1 | Low temperature process for the synthesis of MOF carboxylate nanoparticles | 28 |
| 5 | US20200206710A1 | Freestanding metal-organic framework (MOF) aerogels and preparation | 11 |
| 6 | CA3031029A1 | Solid-state crystallization of metal organic frameworks within mesoporous materials methods and hybrid materi… | 9 |
| 7 | WO2018141685A1 | Low temperature process for the synthesis of MOF carboxylate nanoparticles | 7 |
| 8 | WO2018031733A8 | Solid-state crystallization of metal organic frameworks within mesoporous materials methods and hybrid materi… | 5 |
| 9 | US20240076303A1 | Green Synthesis of Salicylaldehydate-Metal-Organic Frameworks and Applications Thereof | 2 |
| 10 | US11396521B2 | Ultra-thin Ni—Fe-MOF nanosheet, preparation method and use thereof | 2 |
Ranked by citation count within this searched corpus; older filings accumulate citations simply by being available longer, so treat this as a map of influence, not of current commercial weight.
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 filing pattern says
With only 28 families to work from, the signals here are about concentration and timing rather than scale — where claim density sits, and how much weight to put on the most recent years.
A landscape that has cooled, not one that is heating up
Filings peaked in 2017 and have not returned to that level. By the 2022 midpoint, activity had already halved. Treat the final one to two years as undercounted rather than as evidence of a further drop, since publication trails filing by roughly 18 months.
Composition claims occupy most of the available space
C01B (inorganic compounds) and C07F (organometallics) each account for half the dataset. B01J (catalysis/process) is the next tier at 10. Everything else — nanotechnology, electrolytic production, drying, analysis, batteries — sits at 2-3 records each.
US filing dominates the jurisdictional picture
The United States receives more than half of all records, with PCT, Australia and Europe trailing at single digits and Canada and India at one each. That skew points to a US-centric applicant base or a US-first commercial strategy for this technology.
Influence concentrates in a handful of early records
The three most-cited records — an ultra-thin nanosheet MOF, and the paired solid-state crystallization filings — carry citation counts well above the rest of the set. Older records inside a searched corpus tend to accumulate more citations simply by being available longer.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to metal-organic framework crystallization, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) | University of Versailles | 5 |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) | LI MINYUAN | 1 |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) | DINCA MIRCEA | 1 |
| Washington University in St. Louis | WANG CONGZHOU | 1 |
| Washington University in St. Louis | SINGAMANENI SRIKANTH | 1 |
| Washington University in St. Louis | MORRISSEY JEREMIAH J | 1 |
| Washington University in St. Louis | KHARASCH EVAN D | 1 |
| WANG CONGZHOU | SINGAMANENI SRIKANTH | 1 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the whole dataset, and the strongest — Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) (CNRS) with University of Versailles — reaches just 5 shared filings. Most organisations here file alone.
Assignees and where they sit
No organisation in this dataset has filed in the latest tracked year, and co-filing is rare — most of the activity here is single-assignee, and the strongest research partnership still tops out at 5 shared filings.
Nanosheet MOF work carries the most downstream influence
The ultra-thin Ni-Fe-MOF nanosheet record is the single most-cited filing in this set, ahead of both solid-state crystallization filings. High citation count here signals a reference point for later claims rather than a currently dominant commercial position.
One research pairing accounts for the densest co-filing link
CNRS and the University of Versailles are the only pair in this dataset with more than a single shared filing, at 5. Every other co-assignee pair, including MIT's links to individual named inventors, sits at 1.
Activity has gone quiet across every tracked organisation
Every assignee surfaced in the recent-momentum data — from research consortia to individual universities — shows zero filings in the latest tracked year, and one shows a full -100% year-on-year drop. Combined with the 2017 peak, this points to a landscape that consolidated early and has not seen fresh entrants recently.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Research Triangle Institute | 0 | — |
| Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) | 0 | — |
| University of Versailles | 0 | — |
| The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology | 0 | — |
| Soochow University | 0 | — |
| Khalifa University of Science and Technology | 0 | -100% |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) | 0 | — |
| Kiel University | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The filing counts and citation leaders above answer where the claim space is dense; the next questions are usually specific to a route, a claim, or a jurisdiction.
Check a specific route against the citation leaders
If a target process resembles solid-state crystallization within a mesoporous host, or the aerogel/nanosheet forms, compare it directly against the highest-cited families before drafting.
Compare routes in EurekaTest freedom-to-operate in the thin IPC subclasses
B82Y, C25B, F26B and G01N each carry only a handful of records — worth a targeted search before assuming they are truly open.
Run a gap search in EurekaWatch for the publication-lag correction
The 2025-2026 filing counts will revise upward as pending applications publish; re-check the trend in six to twelve months before drawing conclusions about a slowdown.
Set a monitoring alert in EurekaFrequently asked questions
This dataset contains 28 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine MOF/porous-coordination-polymer terminology with crystallization, nucleation, or morphology-control language in the claims, restricted to the C01B39, C07F and C30B7 IPC classes. That is a small, tightly scoped set compared to MOF patenting overall, because it excludes filings that mention MOFs only in passing. Anyone benchmarking against a broader MOF count should expect a much larger number; this figure is specific to crystallization-control claim language.
The United States leads with 15 records, more than the next four offices combined. WIPO/PCT filings (5) indicate applicants seeking multi-jurisdiction cover before national phase entry, while Australia and Europe each show 3, and Canada and India 1 each. The concentration in the US suggests most applicants are either US-based or treat the US as the primary commercial market for this technology.
Not currently, at least on the filing count. The peak year in this dataset is 2017 at 8 filings, and by the 2022 midpoint activity had fallen to 4, a flat-to-declining trajectory rather than sustained growth. Recent-year figures for individual assignees also show no filings in the latest tracked year across the most active organisations, though the most recent one to two years are always undercounted because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months.
It claims a specific process for producing freestanding MOF aerogels: starting from a porous solid containing a metal precursor, converting that precursor into the MOF framework by reaction with organic ligands in a solvent, then removing the solvent by supercritical extraction and drying. The assignee is the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, filed 2020-07-02. It blocks that particular precursor-to-aerogel process sequence, not MOF synthesis or aerogel drying methods generally, so routes starting from a different precursor state or using non-supercritical drying sit outside its literal scope.
The thinnest IPC subclasses in this dataset — B82Y (nanotechnology applications), C25B (electrolytic production), F26B (drying) and G01N (material analysis/testing) — each carry only 2-3 records versus 14 each for the core composition classes C01B and C07F. That imbalance means process-integration and monitoring angles, such as in-line nucleation-state analysis or drying steps tuned to specific pore geometries, have far less prior art than composition claims do. First movers in those adjacent subclasses would be filing into comparatively open space rather than around dense existing claims.
Research Metal-Organic Framework Crystallization in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole metal-organic framework crystallization 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.