Mine Planning Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 77.0% of all 296 records sit with just five assignees, and 90.2% with ten — this is a field where a handful of players hold most of the claim space.
- Filings grew 213% from 15 in 2021 to 47 in 2024, the peak year on record before publication lag thins out the most recent filings.
- G06Q business-process claims (46.3%) now outweigh core E21C mining-and-quarrying claims (34.5%) — scheduling software, not equipment, is where the claim pressure is building.
Filing growth compares 2021 (15 records) with 2024 (47) — 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 296 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families filed against mine planning, production scheduling and cutoff grade optimization, cross-referenced against implementation concepts such as block models, haulage profiles, stockpile strategy, ultimate pit limits, grade uncertainty and reserve reconciliation. It spans publications from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, covering 296 records across receiving offices led by the United States, Australia and WIPO’s PCT route.
The scope sits at the intersection of mine engineering and computational optimization: it captures both hardware-adjacent mining and quarrying claims and the software layer that increasingly wraps around them, from block-model-driven scheduling engines to grade-uncertainty and reserve-reconciliation tooling.
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
Two views of the same 296-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings ran from 5 in 2017 to a peak of 47 in 2024, with the 2021-to-2024 span alone showing +213% growth. 2025 and 2026 read lower, but that reflects publication lag of roughly 18 months rather than a real slowdown — those years are still filling in.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G06Q (business, commerce and admin data processing) leads at 46.3% of the 296 records, ahead of E21C mining and quarrying at 34.5% and C22B metal extraction and refining at 28.7%. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% — the picture is best read as which claim territories overlap, not as mutually exclusive buckets.
Shares are the percentage of the 296 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Mine Planning and Scheduling with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about mine planning and scheduling and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in scope
Systems and methods for maximizing mine production scheduling (US20210398157A1)
Filed by Colorado School of Mines, this record addresses mine production scheduling problems modelled with multi-capacity constraints, grade blending, grade uncertainty, stockpiles, variable pit slopes, multiple destinations and truck hours. It targets an optimal integer solution to the open-pit scheduling problem under capacity and blending constraints, framing the gap between integer-feasible and optimal linear solutions as an "optimality gap" the disclosed algorithm is built to close.Cited 55 times, the highest citation count in this dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20210398157A1 | Systems and methods for maximizing mine production scheduling | 55 |
| 2 | US20060265342A1 | System and method(s) of blended mine planning, design and processing | 50 |
| 3 | US11521138B1 | System and method for adjusting leaching operations based on leach analytic data | 49 |
| 4 | WO2004033854A1 | System and method(s) of blended mine planning, design and processing | 32 |
| 5 | US11681959B1 | System and method for adjusting leaching operations based on leach analytic data | 28 |
| 6 | WO2024006215A1 | System and method for adjusting leaching operations based on leach analytic data | 27 |
| 7 | US20230419132A1 | System and method for determining locations for recoverable mineral in a stockpile | 25 |
| 8 | US20230419199A1 | System and method for activating deep raffinate injection based on leach analytic data | 24 |
| 9 | US20230417724A1 | System and method for determining a location of ore in a stockpile | 24 |
| 10 | US11948103B2 | System and method for activating deep raffinate injection based on leach analytic data | 23 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations — treat this as a signal of influence, not of current technical importance.
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 data that matter more than the raw counts on their own.
Claim space is held by a small group
Five assignees account for 228 of the 296 records in scope, and the top ten hold 90.2%. A new entrant is not filing into open ground at the core of this field; they are filing adjacent to entities that already hold dense positions across scheduling and grade-optimization claims.
Growth is recent and real, but plateauing at the leader
The three-year run to the 2024 peak of 47 filings shows the field accelerating, not maturing. Momentum by assignee is uneven, though: the leading filer shows a sharp year-on-year drop in the most recent complete year, consistent with publication lag rather than an actual pullback.
Software claims now outpace core mining claims
Business-process and data-processing classes (G06Q, G06F, G06T combined) sit alongside traditional mining and metallurgy classes (E21C, C22B) at comparable or higher shares. That split signals where new claims are landing: scheduling algorithms and image/data processing layered onto extraction operations, not just the extraction methods themselves.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to mine planning and scheduling, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where it thins out
The ranked leaders hold most of the volume, but the shape of that lead — and the handful of co-filing partnerships — points to where competitive pressure is concentrated versus where it is not.
One filer well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee alone accounts for 113 of the 296 records in scope, roughly a third of the entire dataset before counting anyone else. Fifth place sits at 19 records and tenth place at 4, a steep drop-off that marks a genuine leader-and-field structure rather than a crowded top tier.
Partnerships are rare and concentrated
Only seven co-assignee pairings appear in this dataset, and the strongest pairs recur around the same handful of organisations — university-industry links and enterprise software tie-ups rather than broad cross-industry collaboration. Co-filing is the exception here, not the norm.
A long tail below the top ten
Beyond the top ten, which together hold 90.2% of all 296 records, the remaining ranked assignees each hold small, often single-digit counts. That tail is where narrower, more defensible filings tend to sit — useful territory to search before assuming the space is closed.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Freeport-McMoRan Inc | 2 | -93% |
| BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd | 0 | — |
| Technological Resources Pty Ltd | 0 | — |
| 2341451 ONTARIO | 0 | — |
| CMTE Development Ltd | 0 | — |
| Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) | 0 | — |
| Dassault Systemes Canada Inc | 0 | — |
| University of Melbourne | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The landscape points to a field with a dominant leader, real recent growth, and a software layer that is expanding faster than the underlying mining claims.
Check the white space chips against your own claims
The under-claimed sub-areas above — reserve reconciliation automation, grade uncertainty quantification, stockpile blending strategy — carry thinner filing density than core scheduling claims. A narrow, specific first claim in one of these areas has more room to stand.
Explore white space in EurekaWatch the leader's next filings closely
With 113 of 296 records, the top assignee's next moves will shape freedom-to-operate for everyone else. A drop in their most recent year is more likely publication lag than retreat.
Track assignee activity in EurekaRe-run this scope as 2025-2026 publications land
Because publication lags filing by around 18 months, the 2024 peak of 47 filings is the last full year of signal. Revisit this scope in a future cut to see whether growth past 2024 held.
Set up a monitoring search in EurekaCommon questions about mine planning and scheduling patents
One assignee leads the ranked field by a wide margin, holding 113 of the 296 records in scope — close to a third of the entire dataset. The gap to the rest of the field is steep: fifth place holds 19 records and tenth place holds 4, so the leader's position is not closely contested by any single competitor. The ranked list covers 34 companies in total, and it is the complete list the dataset returns rather than a top-50 or top-100 cut.
Yes, filings grew 213% from 15 in 2021 to a peak of 47 in 2024, which is the strongest three-year run in the dataset. Figures for 2025 and 2026 appear lower, but that reflects publication lag of roughly 18 months rather than a genuine slowdown, since recent filings have not all published yet. 2024 is the most recent year that can be treated as a complete, reliable data point.
Business, commerce and administrative data processing (IPC class G06Q) is the largest single category, appearing in 46.3% of the 296 records, ahead of core mining and quarrying claims under E21C at 34.5% and metal extraction and refining under C22B at 28.7%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages overlap rather than summing to 100%. The pattern shows software and data-processing layers — scheduling engines, image processing, digital data handling — increasingly wrapped around traditional mining operations claims.
Sub-areas such as reserve reconciliation automation, grade uncertainty quantification methods, stockpile blending strategy optimization and haulage profile simulation show thinner filing density relative to the dominant scheduling and cutoff-grade claims. That does not mean these areas are unclaimed, but claim density is lower, which typically gives a new, narrowly drafted filing more room to establish a defensible position. Checking the existing most-cited records in these specific sub-areas before drafting is still essential.
US20210398157A1, filed by Colorado School of Mines, covers methods for solving open-pit mine production scheduling problems that model multiple capacity constraints, grade blending, grade uncertainty, stockpiles, variable pit slopes, multiple destinations and truck hours simultaneously. It is directed at producing an optimal integer solution under combined capacity and blending constraints, and frames the difference between the integer-feasible and optimal linear solution as an addressable "optimality gap." With 55 citations, it is the most-cited record in this dataset, meaning later filings frequently reference it as prior art. Anyone building a multi-constraint scheduling engine touching these same variables should review its claims closely.
Research Mine Planning and Scheduling in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole mine planning and scheduling 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.