Natural Gas Liquefaction Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- Filing has cooled sharply. from a peak of 20 families in 2018 to just 2 at the 2022 midpoint, with the most recent full year showing no activity from any tracked assignee.
- Claim density sits almost entirely in one subclass. all 154 families touch F25J, while adjacent turbine and thermal-power classes (F01D, F01K, F02C) each carry only 15 records apiece.
- Three parties co-file repeatedly. the strongest co-assignee pairings each recur 6 times, pointing to a small cluster of joint-development filings rather than a broad collaborative field.
A mature process field with a shrinking filing rate
Natural gas liquefaction is a process engineering field: claims cover refrigerant cycles, heat exchanger geometry, boil-off gas handling and train capacity rather than a single novel material. The dataset behind this page pulls 154 patent families filed between 2015 and mid-2026 under IPC classes tied to gas liquefaction and separation (F25J), fuels (C10L) and gas-turbine plant (F02C). Filing rose to a peak in 2018 and has declined since, with the 2022 midpoint showing only 2 new families and the final tracked year showing none — a pattern consistent with a field where core process routes were staked out early and later filers are working narrower refinements.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the apparent drop-off in the most recent year overstates the real slowdown; some of that activity has simply not published yet. Even allowing for that lag, the multi-year decline from the 2018 peak through the 2022 midpoint is a genuine trend, not a reporting artefact, and it should shape how aggressively a new entrant treats this space.
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
The record set spans receiving offices in the United States, Australia, Canada, Europe, the WIPO PCT system and Malaysia, reflecting the export-terminal geography of LNG development rather than a single home jurisdiction.
A field past its filing peak
Annual filings climbed to 20 in 2018, then fell steadily; by the 2022 midpoint only 2 new families appeared, and the latest tracked year recorded zero across every major assignee.
Concentration in F25J with thin adjacent coverage
All 154 families sit in F25J (gas liquefaction and separation); C10L (fuels) carries 32, and the turbine-related classes F01D, F01K and F02C carry 15 each, with C10G, F25B and B01D trailing further behind.
Shares are the percentage of the 154 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Natural Gas Liquefaction Processes with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about natural gas liquefaction processes and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe foundational filings still shaping freedom-to-operate
Heat exchanger design for natural gas liquefaction (US7637112B2, UOP LLC)
An inexpensive heat exchanger is disclosed, wherein the heat exchanger is made up of a plurality of plates and each plate has at least one channel defined in the plate. The plates are stacked and bonded together to form a block having conduits for carrying fluids, and where each fluid is in thermal communication with the other fluids.Granted 2009-12-29 to UOP LLC; illustrative of the plate-and-block heat exchanger claim style that recurs across this dataset's most-cited records.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20040079107A1 | Natural gas liquefaction | 165 |
| 2 | US6742358B2 | Natural gas liquefaction | 119 |
| 3 | US20030005722A1 | Natural gas liquefaction | 115 |
| 4 | US20050247078A1 | Natural gas liquefaction | 107 |
| 5 | US7210311B2 | Natural gas liquefaction | 103 |
| 6 | US20050268649A1 | Natural gas liquefaction | 89 |
| 7 | US7010937B2 | Natural gas liquefaction | 74 |
| 8 | US7204100B2 | Natural gas liquefaction | 73 |
| 9 | US6945075B2 | Natural gas liquefaction | 47 |
| 10 | US7565815B2 | Natural gas liquefaction | 38 |
Citation counts favour older filings by construction of the search corpus; treat rank here as a measure of historical influence, not current 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 a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are put in context: a peak-and-decline filing curve, a narrow technology core, and a small cluster of repeat co-filers.
The core process routes were staked out early
Filings climbed to 20 families in 2018 and fell to 2 by the 2022 midpoint, with nothing recorded in the most recent tracked year. That trajectory suggests the dominant mixed-refrigerant and heat-exchanger architectures were largely claimed in the 2017-2019 window.
Nearly every filing sits in one subclass
Every family in this dataset touches F25J, gas liquefaction and separation, while C10L (fuels) trails at 32 and the turbine classes F01D, F01K and F02C sit at 15 each. New claims aimed squarely at F25J are entering the densest part of the field.
A small, repeat cluster of joint filings
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset; the three strongest pairings each recur 6 times, involving the same small group of parties rather than a broad web of collaboration.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to natural gas liquefaction processes, with the prior art for and against each one.
A concentrated field with little recent movement
Recent-year momentum figures show zero new families in the latest tracked year across every major assignee tracked here, consistent with the broader filing decline rather than a single company pulling back.
No assignee is currently filing at pace
Every major assignee in the momentum data, from established engineering houses to project-specific entities, shows zero filings in the latest tracked year. Combined with the 2018 peak, this points to a field where the active filing window has largely closed for now.
Joint filings cluster around a few names
The strongest co-assignee relationships each show 6 shared families, linking a small set of engineering and project-development entities rather than a wide industry consortium.
Filing follows terminal geography
The United States leads receiving offices with 31 filings, followed by Australia at 23 and Canada at 18, with Europe, WIPO/PCT and Malaysia each in double digits, tracking where LNG export and import infrastructure has been built or proposed.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Ortloff Engineers, Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. | 0 | — |
| IACX Energy | 0 | — |
| BP North America | 0 | — |
| Technip Energies France | 0 | — |
| Honeywell LNG LLC | 0 | — |
| HERCULES PROJECT CO LLC | 0 | — |
| Keppel Offshore & Marine Technology Centre Pte Ltd | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing and citation patterns above are a starting point for scoping freedom-to-operate work or identifying where a new process refinement might still clear prior art.
Check specific claim language against your process
The most-cited records in this dataset, several tied to natural gas liquefaction heat exchanger and cycle design, are worth a clause-by-clause read before drafting new claims in F25J.
Explore claims in Patsnap EurekaTrack whether the filing decline reverses
With the latest tracked year at zero across every major assignee, a small uptick in the next publication cycle would be a meaningful signal given the 18-month publication lag.
Set up monitoring in Patsnap EurekaCommon questions about LNG process patents
The most-cited records in this dataset are a cluster of natural gas liquefaction filings from the early-to-mid 2000s, led by a filing cited 165 times, with several others in the 100-120 citation range. High citation counts in a search corpus like this favour older, foundational filings simply because they have had more years to accumulate citations, so treat them as markers of historical influence on later drafting rather than proof that the underlying technology is still the commercial standard. Anyone doing freedom-to-operate work should still read the actual claims of these records rather than relying on citation rank alone.
No, filing activity in this dataset peaked at 20 families in 2018 and has declined since, with only 2 new families recorded at the 2022 midpoint and none in the most recent tracked year. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the very last year is understated in any dataset, so some additional 2025-2026 filings will likely appear later. Even accounting for that lag, the multi-year decline from 2018 through 2022 reflects a real slowdown in new filing rather than a reporting gap.
Almost the entire dataset, all 154 families, sits in IPC class F25J, which covers gas liquefaction and separation, making it the densest part of the field for new claims. Fuels-related class C10L carries a secondary concentration of 32 families, while turbine and thermal power classes F01D, F01K and F02C each carry 15. A new filer aiming squarely at core F25J claim territory, such as general mixed-refrigerant cycle configurations, is entering the most contested part of the landscape.
Based on the IPC composition, the branches furthest from the F25J core, such as C10G hydrocarbon refining crossover, F25B refrigeration equipment integration and B01D separation process combinations, carry only a handful of filings each. Specific sub-areas like boil-off gas re-liquefaction control logic, modular train interconnect design and mixed-refrigerant composition auto-tuning also appear thin relative to the dense core claim territory. These are reasonable starting points for scoping a new filing, though a proper clearance search should confirm the gap holds once broader keyword variants and non-English filings are checked.
Yes, though the dataset shows this is limited to a small group rather than a broad industry pattern: only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the full period. The three strongest pairings each recur 6 times, linking the same small cluster of engineering and project-development entities, which suggests joint development agreements on specific projects rather than open industry-wide collaboration. Anyone assessing competitive risk should look at these pairings individually rather than assuming general collaboration across the sector.
Research Natural Gas Liquefaction Processes in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole natural gas liquefaction processes 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.