Nanomaterials Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Concentrated but not locked up. The top 5 assignees hold 21.4% of all 2,449 records in scope and the top 10 hold 31.2% — a real lead, not a lockout, with a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants behind them.
- Filing has cooled from its 2017 peak. Annual filings peaked at 159 in 2017; the last complete year on record, 2024, sits at 59, down 29% from 83 in 2021 — though 2025-26 counts are still filling in as publication catches up to filing.
- Application classes outnumber core nanostructure classes. H01M battery and H01L semiconductor classes each draw more filings than B82Y or B82B nanotechnology-specific classes, showing nanomaterials claims are increasingly made through the application, not the material class alone.
Filing growth compares 2021 (83 records) with 2024 (59) — 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 2,449 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the nanomaterials patent record actually shows
The dataset covers 2,449 published records filed against nanoscale, nanostructured or functional nanomaterials claims tied to material phase, surface layer, particle morphology, mechanical strength or synthesis conditions. Filing activity runs from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with a clear peak in 2017 and a decline through the most recent complete filing year. The assignee ranking covers the 100 companies the data endpoint returns, not an exhaustive list of every filer — it is enough to show where the field concentrates and where it thins out.
Reading this landscape requires separating raw document counts from real technical scope. A single organisation can file many continuations and jurisdictional variants around one invention, so family-level counting is the fairer basis for comparing organisations. The IPC composition below tells a similar story: because a single record can carry several classification codes, the shares sum to well over 100% of the record total, and that overlap is itself informative — it shows how often nanomaterials claims are drafted jointly with battery, semiconductor or biomedical subject matter rather than as freestanding material-science claims.
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 2,449-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings peaked at 159 in 2017 and had fallen to 59 by 2024, the last year that can be treated as complete — a 29% decline from the 2021 count of 83. 2025 and 2026 figures (22 in 2026 so far) are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months; they should not yet be read as a continued fall.
IPC subclass composition
Battery-related H01M claims lead at 17.1% of all 2,449 records, ahead of semiconductor-device H01L claims at 13.7%. The two IPC codes most specific to nanomaterials as a discipline — B82Y nanotechnology applications (11.8%) and B82B nanostructures (8.2%) — sit behind several application-oriented classes including A61K medicinal preparations (11.5%) and C01B inorganic compounds (10.8%), indicating that nanomaterials claims are frequently anchored to a downstream application rather than filed as pure material-science disclosures.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,449 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Nanomaterials & Nanostructures Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about nanomaterials & nanostructures patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
Use of a nanostructured material as protective coating of metal surfaces
The present invention relates to the use of a nanostructured material, as a protective coating for metallic surfaces, said nanostructured material comprising functionalized nano-building blocks and a polymer or hybrid organic/inorganic matrix. It also relates to a particular nanostructured material in which the matrix is prepared from at least three silicon alkoxides.Filed by European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS France), published 2009-08-13 as US20090202815A1.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050038498A1 | Medical device applications of nanostructured surfaces | 628 |
| 2 | US6710366B1 | Nanocomposite materials with engineered properties | 601 |
| 3 | US20060204738A1 | Medical device applications of nanostructured surfaces | 596 |
| 4 | US6344271B1 | Materials and products using nanostructured non-stoichiometric substances | 408 |
| 5 | US20040023317A1 | Implantable biosensor from stratified nanostructured membranes | 355 |
| 6 | US20030066998A1 | Quantum dots of Group IV semiconductor materials | 336 |
| 7 | WO2012100099A2 | Slippery surfaces with high pressure stability, optical transparency, and self-healing characteristics | 334 |
| 8 | US7090722B2 | Acid-reactive dental fillers, compositions, and methods | 317 |
| 9 | US20020158342A1 | Nanofabrication | 316 |
| 10 | US20070132043A1 | Nano-electronic sensors for chemical and biological analytes, including capacitance and bio-membrane devices | 313 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations within this corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a measure of current commercial relevance.
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 filing strategy
Three read-outs from the concentration, trend and citation data that matter for deciding where to file and where to watch.
A lead group, not a lockout
The top 5 assignees account for 21.4% of all records in scope and the top 10 for 31.2%. That leaves roughly two-thirds of filing activity spread across the remaining 90 ranked assignees plus unranked filers — enough headroom for a well-targeted entrant to build a defensible position outside the leaders' core claims.
Volume has cooled since the 2017 peak
Filings peaked at 159 in 2017 and the last complete year, 2024, sits at 59 — down 29% from 2021's 83. Recent-year momentum by assignee shows most leading filers flat or at zero in the latest year, consistent with a maturing rather than an expanding filing wave.
Application classes outweigh material classes
H01M battery claims (17.1% of records) and H01L semiconductor claims (13.7%) each exceed B82B nanostructures (8.2%), the IPC code most narrowly aimed at nanostructure claims themselves. Nanomaterials disclosures are increasingly drafted around a specific downstream use rather than the underlying material alone.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to nanomaterials & nanostructures patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| The Regents of the University of California | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 12 |
| The Regents of the University of California | Spinnaker Biosciences Inc. | 12 |
| The Regents of the University of California | Theon Inc. | 8 |
| 3M Innovative Properties Co. | YU TA HUA | 6 |
| 3M Innovative Properties Co. | KOLB WILLIAM BLAKE | 6 |
| Nanyang Technological University | The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University | 6 |
| Printed Energy Technology Ltd. | Avery Dennison Retail Information Services LLC | 5 |
| Printed Energy Technology Ltd. | RABIN WORLDWIDE INC | 5 |
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest linking a major university to biotech and materials partners at counts up to 12 — a sign that some of the highest-value claims in this space are being built through joint filings rather than solo prosecution.
Who is filing, and where the gate sits
The ranked leaders combine large industrial filers, research universities and materials-focused specialists. No single organisation controls the field, but several hold clusters dense enough to require design-around analysis before filing nearby.
A single filer well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 157 records, more than double the fifth-place count of 75 and roughly four times the tenth-place count of 39 — a steep drop-off that marks a genuine leadership position rather than a crowded top tier.
Most ranked filers hold modest counts
Below the top 10, filing counts fall away quickly across the remaining ranked assignees. That distribution is typical of a field still open to focused entrants rather than one already carved up by a handful of blocking portfolios.
Universities anchor the densest co-filing pairs
The strongest co-assignee pairs in the dataset pair a major research university with biotech and materials-science partners, at counts up to 12 shared filings — evidence that some of the most cited claim clusters in this landscape originate in joint university-industry work.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| The Regents of the University of California | 1 | 0% |
| 3M Innovative Properties Co. | 0 | — |
| API Intellectual Property Holdings LLC | 0 | — |
| GranBio Intellectual Property Holdings LLC | 0 | -100% |
| President and Fellows of Harvard College | 0 | — |
| Baker Hughes Co. | 0 | — |
| Printed Energy Technology Ltd. | 0 | — |
| North Carolina State University | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
The landscape points to specific next questions rather than a single conclusion — use them to scope freedom-to-operate work or a filing strategy.
Check the under-claimed branches against your own claims
Protective-coating and non-stoichiometric nanostructure claims sit behind battery and semiconductor classes in filing density. If your work touches these branches, a focused prior-art pull is cheaper now than after a competitor consolidates the space.
Explore white space in EurekaWatch the leader's recent-year momentum, not just its total
A 157-record leader with flat or zero recent-year filings behaves differently from one still accelerating. Track filing momentum by assignee before assuming a large historical portfolio means active current pressure.
Track assignee momentum in EurekaTreat citation leaders as influence, not current risk
The most-cited records in this set were published years ago and have simply had longer to accumulate citations. Confirm their claims are still in force before treating them as a blocking risk.
Pull full citation trees in EurekaCommon questions about the nanomaterials patent landscape
The ranking covers 100 assignees, and it is concentrated at the top: the leading filer holds 157 records, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 75 and tenth place at 39. Together the top 5 account for 21.4% of all 2,449 records in scope, and the top 10 account for 31.2%. That leaves a substantial majority of filing activity spread across the remaining ranked assignees and unranked filers, so leadership here is real but not exclusive.
Filing peaked at 159 records in 2017 and has declined since; by 2024, the last year that can be treated as complete, annual filings had fallen to 59, down 29% from 83 in 2021. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent years understate actual filing activity and should not be read as confirming a continued decline on their own.
Battery-related claims under IPC class H01M lead at 17.1% of all 2,449 records, followed by semiconductor-device claims under H01L at 13.7%. Notably, the IPC classes most specific to nanotechnology itself — B82Y nanotechnology applications and B82B nanostructures — sit behind several application classes, at 11.8% and 8.2% respectively. This suggests nanomaterials innovation is increasingly captured through the application it enables rather than filed as a standalone material-science disclosure.
US20090202815A1, filed by European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS France) and published in 2009, covers the use of a nanostructured material as a protective coating for metal surfaces, built from functionalized nano-building blocks in a polymer or hybrid organic/inorganic matrix, with a specific variant using a matrix prepared from at least three silicon alkoxides. It narrows freedom to operate for coatings matching that specific matrix chemistry and functionalization approach, but it does not cover nanostructured coatings generally — alternative matrix chemistries or fewer/different alkoxide components sit outside its literal claim scope, subject to a full claims read and status check.
Filing density is comparatively thin in protective-coating applications for metal surfaces, non-stoichiometric nanostructured substances, and characterization-method claims that sit adjacent to the G01N material-testing class rather than squarely within it. These branches sit behind the well-occupied battery, semiconductor and biomedical classes in filing volume. A first claim in these areas would need to tie a specific synthesis condition or particle-morphology parameter to a measurable material property to distinguish itself from the existing most-cited prior art in the space.
Research Nanomaterials & Nanostructures Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole nanomaterials & nanostructures 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.