MOF Testing & Inspection Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- Filing already peaked. 2017 recorded the high point at 10 filings; by the 2022 midpoint activity had halved to 5, and the trend has not recovered since.
- Characterization claims sit inside a narrow IPC band. 24 of 24 families touch C01B, with B01J and C07F the only other subclasses carrying meaningful volume — most of the surrounding classification space is thin.
- Citation weight concentrates in one family lineage. The most-cited records are variants of the same solid-state crystallization technique (WO2018031733A1, US20190169036A1, CA3031029A1), not three independent inventions.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families where metal-organic framework or porous coordination polymer claims are combined with the specific vocabulary of physical characterization: BET surface area, XRD characterization, porosity measurement and adsorption isotherm testing. That combination narrows a large MOF literature down to the slice concerned with proving a framework’s structure and porosity rather than merely synthesizing or applying one. The scope is deliberately tight — 24 families across roughly a decade of publication.
Filing offices skew toward the United States, with PCT, Australian, European, Canadian and UK filings filling out a modest international tail. Because publication lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent years in the trend understate real activity, but the multi-year decline from the 2017 peak is wide enough that this lag alone does not explain it.
Filing trend and technology mix
Two views of the same 24 families: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the characterization claims.
A single peak, then decline
Filings hit 10 in 2017, fell to a midpoint of 5 by 2022, and trail toward zero in the most recent (partial) year. There is no second wave visible in this data.
Concentrated in C01B, with thin adjacent coverage
Every family in the set touches C01B (non-metallic elements and inorganic compounds). B01J (catalysis) and C07F (organo-metallic compounds) are the next-heaviest subclasses; separation (B01D), misc. materials (C09K), exhaust treatment (F01N) and dyes (C09B) each carry only one or two families.
Shares are the percentage of the 24 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 Testing and Inspection with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about metal-organic framework testing and inspection and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records shaping this space
Metal-organic framework materials comprising a diimine scaffold and methods for production thereof
The patent describes MOF materials built from multidentate organic ligands that bridge first and second binding sites with a third, diimine-based binding site. This construction is proposed to resolve crystallization problems that arise when secondary binding sites are present, particularly when the framework is formed from a preformed metal cluster used as the metal source.US12227526B2, granted to Exxonmobil Technology and Engineering Company, 2025-02-18.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2018031733A1 | Solid-state crystallization of metal organic frameworks within mesoporous meterials methods and hybrid materi… | 43 |
| 2 | US20190169036A1 | Solid-state crystallization of metal organic frameworks within mesoporous materials methods and hybrid materi… | 36 |
| 3 | WO2014013274A2 | Metal-organic frameworks | 29 |
| 4 | CA3031029A1 | Solid-state crystallization of metal organic frameworks within mesoporous materials methods and hybrid materi… | 9 |
| 5 | US20190143272A1 | CATALYST COMPOSITE AND USE THEREOF IN THE SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION OF NOx | 8 |
| 6 | WO2018031733A8 | Solid-state crystallization of metal organic frameworks within mesoporous materials methods and hybrid materi… | 5 |
| 7 | US11192066B2 | Catalyst composite and use thereof in the selective catalytic reduction of NO<sub>x</sub> | 4 |
| 8 | US20240002417A1 | Aqueous-based synthesis of metal organic frameworks | 2 |
| 9 | WO2014013274A3 | Metal-organic frameworks | 2 |
Citation counts reward older filings inside this corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on later work, not of present-day commercial weight.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (9 of 9 rows); 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 findings that change how a freedom-to-operate or whitespace search should be scoped in this niche.
The wave has already passed
Filing activity peaked in 2017 and has declined toward zero through the most recent tracked year. Even allowing for an 18-month publication lag understating the latest year, the multi-year slide from a midpoint of 5 in 2022 signals a niche that most assignees have already worked through rather than one still building.
One subclass carries the whole set
Every family in this landscape is classified under C01B. That means claim space for the core characterization methods is fully occupied there, while adjacent subclasses like B01D, C09K and F01N — each with only one or two families — remain comparatively open for framing new applications.
Influence sits with one lineage, not one company
The three most-cited records (WO2018031733A1, US20190169036A1, CA3031029A1) are jurisdictional variants of the same solid-state crystallization technique for MOFs in mesoporous materials. A design-around search that only checks one of these numbers will miss the other two members of the same family lineage.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to metal-organic framework testing and inspection, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claims — and who has gone quiet
Recent-year momentum across the tracked assignees is flat: every organisation in the ranking shows zero filings in the latest year, consistent with the overall decline from the 2017 peak.
No active filer in the most recent year
Research Triangle Institute, University of Nottingham, BASF, Exxonmobil Technology and Engineering Company, Boston College and Beijing University of Technology all show zero filings in the latest tracked year. That is a flat picture across academic, industrial and government-adjacent assignees alike, not a single company pulling back.
Collaboration is thin and individual-led
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest links (Thadhani Chhaya with Manna Kuntal, Conway David Jonathan, and Choudhary Akanksha) all centred on the same lead inventor. There is no dense multi-institution cluster here.
A small, specialist corpus
With 24 families total, this is a narrow slice of the broader MOF patent literature — narrow enough that a single well-drafted claim in an under-covered subclass can meaningfully shift the competitive picture.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Research Triangle Institute | 0 | — |
| University of Nottingham | 0 | — |
| BASF | 0 | — |
| Exxonmobil Technology and Engineering Company | 0 | — |
| Boston College | 0 | — |
| Beijing University of Technology | 0 | — |
| THADHANI CHHAYA | 0 | — |
| MANNA KUNTAL | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The published dataset answers what has been filed; the next step is testing specific claim language against it.
Check the diimine-scaffold claim boundary
US12227526B2 is the most recent representative filing in this set. Before designing a new ligand chemistry around secondary binding sites, map its claim scope against the diimine-moiety approach directly.
Explore this patent in EurekaTrace the solid-state crystallization family lineage
WO2018031733A1, US20190169036A1 and CA3031029A1 share the same underlying technique. A full-family citation trace will show which jurisdictions are actually covered and which are not.
Run a family trace in EurekaTest the under-claimed subclasses
B01D, C09K, C09B and F01N each carry only one or two families in this dataset. A targeted search will confirm whether that reflects genuine white space or simply a narrow search string.
Search adjacent IPC classes in EurekaCommon questions on MOF testing and inspection patents
The dataset shows filings peaking at 10 in 2017 and falling to a midpoint of 5 by 2022, trailing toward zero in the most recent tracked year. This pattern is typical of a narrow characterization niche: once the core BET, XRD and adsorption isotherm testing methods for MOFs were claimed by early filers, later entrants had less unclaimed method space to work with. Note that publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the very latest year is always undercounted, but the multi-year decline from the 2017 peak is too large to be explained by that lag alone.
C01B, the subclass for non-metallic elements and inorganic compounds, appears in all 24 families in this dataset. B01J (catalysis) and C07F (organo-metallic compounds) are the next most common, while subclasses like B01D, C09K, F01N and C09B each carry only one or two families. That concentration means a freedom-to-operate search centred only on C01B will catch the bulk of prior art, but a design-around search should still check the thinner adjacent subclasses for gaps.
US12227526B2, granted to Exxonmobil Technology and Engineering Company on 2025-02-18, covers MOF materials built from multidentate organic ligands that bridge two binding sites using a third, diimine-based binding site, typically formed from a preformed metal cluster. The claimed approach is aimed at resolving crystallization problems that occur when secondary binding sites are present in the ligand. Anyone designing a new MOF ligand chemistry with similar bridging binding-site architecture should review this patent's claim scope directly rather than relying on the abstract alone.
The ranked assignees in this dataset include Research Triangle Institute, University of Nottingham, BASF, Exxonmobil Technology and Engineering Company, Boston College and Beijing University of Technology, spanning academic, government-linked and industrial organisations. None of these assignees show filings in the most recent tracked year, indicating the field has gone quiet across the board rather than consolidating around one active filer. Collaboration is also limited: only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the whole dataset, and the strongest links trace back to a single lead inventor rather than an institutional partnership.
The clearest under-claimed branches sit in the IPC subclasses with only one or two families each: B01D (separation processes, relevant to MOF-based membrane porosity testing), C09K (misc. materials applications), F01N (exhaust treatment, relevant to MOF-based NOx catalysis testing) and C09B (dyes and pigments). These are not confirmed empty — they may simply be underrepresented in a search string built around core characterization terms — but they are the first places to check before assuming freedom to operate for a new characterization method tied to one of those applications.
Research Metal-Organic Framework Testing and Inspection in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole metal-organic framework testing and inspection 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.