Nanofiltration Fouling Control Patents: Leaders, Trends & Gaps 2026
A data-backed view of nanofiltration membrane fouling control patents: who leads filings, how fast the field is growing, where technology claims cluster, and which branches remain open.
Filing growth = 2021 (1 records) → 2024 (15); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 182 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Nanofiltration fouling control sits at the junction of membrane separation science and water treatment engineering. This landscape draws on 182 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, filtered to documents that explicitly combine nanofiltration membrane terminology with fouling, biofouling, flux decline or fouling-resistance language under separation-process and water-treatment IPC classes. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any trend understate real activity.
The scope spans anti-fouling chemistries, membrane surface modification, cleaning protocols and hybrid module designs, filtered specifically to nanofiltration rather than reverse osmosis or ultrafiltration more broadly. Receiving-office data shows filing activity spread across the United States, China, Europe, WIPO's PCT route, Australia and India, indicating this is a globally contested rather than regionally confined problem.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 182-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A fast recent build-up after a false start
Filings ran at 3 records in 2017, climbed to a peak of 19 in 2019, and then thinned before rebuilding sharply: 2021's single record grew to 15 by 2024, a +1400% increase over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in as publication catches up, so treat the latest two years as a floor, not a ceiling.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
Separation process claims dominate the class mix
B01D (separation processes, including filtration) appears in 84.1% of the 182 records, and C02F (water and wastewater treatment) in 57.1% — the two overlap heavily, confirming most inventive activity addresses the membrane-process boundary itself. Smaller classes such as A01N (biocides, 4.4%), C01D (3.8%), A23J (2.7%), B02C (2.7%), C07C (2.2%) and G01N (2.2%) show where fouling-control work touches biocide chemistry, mineral recovery, food-protein applications, pre-treatment grinding, organic-acid handling and analytical testing — each a much thinner claim layer than the core two classes.
Shares are the percentage of the 182 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Nanofiltration Membrane Fouling Control Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about nanofiltration membrane fouling control patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art in this space
EP3068520B1 — Composition and method for biofouling inhibition of a membrane separation device
Granted to Ecolab USA, this filing (2024-05-29) claims a composition and method for inhibiting biofouling specifically on membrane separation equipment — placing an active anti-biofouling chemistry claim squarely inside the nanofiltration fouling-control space rather than as a generic water-treatment biocide.Original title filed in German; translated here for readability.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20100163471A1 | Water desalination plant and system for the production of pure water and salt | 127 |
| 2 | US5681728A | Method and apparatus for the recovery and purification of organic acids | 118 |
| 3 | US20120160753A1 | Water desalination plant and system for the production of pure water and salt | 98 |
| 4 | GB2395946A | Extracting sodium chloride from seawater, using nanofiltration | 97 |
| 5 | US20090101583A1 | Hybrid membrane module, system and process for treatment of industrial wastewater | 61 |
| 6 | US20160303524A1 | Polyacrylonitrile/chitosan composite nanofiltration membrane containing graphene oxide and preparation method… | 50 |
| 7 | US8685252B2 | Water treatment systems and methods | 49 |
| 8 | US20120193287A1 | Packed bed bioreactor for biofouling control of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes | 43 |
| 9 | CN105056777A | 一种木质素交联改性聚合物分离膜及其用途 | 33 |
| 10 | JP2008296103A | Water purifier and water purification method | 31 |
Citation counts favour older documents simply because they have had longer to accumulate references within the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on the field's vocabulary, 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 data actually indicates
Four readings of the same dataset, each pointing at a different decision a filer or licensor needs to make.
A leaning field, not a monopoly
The leading assignee alone holds 21 records, and the top five combined reach 42.3% of all 182 records in scope. That leaves the majority of filings spread across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants — room to compete, but also a crowded field to search before filing.
A sharp, recent re-acceleration
After a 2019 peak of 19 records, filings thinned to just 1 in 2021 before rebuilding to 15 by 2024 — a +1400% rise over that three-year window. This is the steepest verified growth signal in the dataset and marks 2021–2024 as the period competitors should study most closely.
Claims cluster at the separation step
B01D separation-process claims appear in the large majority of records, with C02F water-treatment integration close behind at 57.1%. The smaller classes — biocides, mineral recovery, food-protein processing — are each under 5% of records, suggesting thinner but potentially less contested claim territory.
No single dominant filing venue
The United States leads with 29 records, followed closely by China at 25 and the European Patent Office at 24, with WIPO's PCT route, Australia and India all carrying meaningful volume. This spread argues for multi-jurisdiction freedom-to-operate checks rather than a single-country search.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to nanofiltration membrane fouling control patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this landscape
The figures above establish where claim density sits; the next step is testing a specific composition, cleaning protocol or module design against that density before committing R&D or filing budget.
Run a freedom-to-operate check
Screen a candidate fouling-control formulation or membrane modification against the densest claim clusters — B01D separation-process and C02F treatment-integration filings — before scaling a pilot.
Search this space in EurekaTrack the fast-movers
The 2021–2024 filing surge signals which assignees are actively building position now; monitoring their continuation filings is more useful than watching the long tail of single-filing entrants.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaProbe the thinner IPC branches
Biocide chemistry, mineral recovery and analytical-testing claims each sit under 5% of records — worth a deeper look before assuming they are saturated.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
The dataset's ranked leader holds 21 of the 182 records in scope, with the top five assignees combined accounting for 42.3% of all records. Beyond the top ten, which together reach 57.1%, filings spread across a long tail of companies each holding only a handful of records. This pattern means no single company controls the field outright, but a short list of assignees has built a meaningfully larger position than everyone else and is worth watching for continuation filings.
Filings peaked at 19 records in 2019, thinned sharply to just 1 record in 2021, and then rebuilt to 15 records by 2024 — a documented +1400% increase over that three-year span. Because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset are still incomplete and should not be read as a slowdown. The verified trend through 2024 is one of rapid re-acceleration after a dip, not steady linear growth.
B01D, covering separation processes including filtration, appears in 84.1% of the 182 records in scope, making it the dominant class by a wide margin. C02F, water and wastewater treatment, appears in 57.1% of records and overlaps heavily with B01D, reflecting that most inventions address the membrane-process step directly rather than downstream treatment alone. Smaller classes such as biocides (A01N), alkali-metal compounds (C01D) and analytical testing (G01N) each sit under 5% of records and represent thinner, more specialised claim territory.
EP3068520B1, granted to Ecolab USA in 2024, claims a composition and method specifically for inhibiting biofouling on membrane separation devices. It sits inside the biocide-adjacent claim space rather than the dominant B01D separation-process cluster, so it is a meaningful reference for anyone developing an anti-biofouling chemistry aimed at membrane equipment, but it does not by itself block the much larger volume of purely mechanical or structural fouling-resistance claims. Anyone filing a competing biofouling-inhibition composition should review its claim scope directly rather than relying on this summary alone.
The IPC composition shows several branches sitting well under 5% of the 182 records — food-protein applications (A23J), pre-treatment grinding and pulverising (B02C), organic-acid chemistry (C07C) and analytical testing (G01N) among them. These lower-density branches suggest less-claimed intersections, for example fouling-resistant membranes tuned for food-protein separation, or analytical monitoring methods paired directly with fouling-control chemistries. Low density is not proof of low value; it simply means fewer prior filings to design around, so each candidate still needs its own search before committing.
Research Nanofiltration Membrane Fouling Control Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole nanofiltration membrane fouling control patent landscape 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.