Nonferrous Metallurgy Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- 40% of all 75 records sit with just five assignees — the top 5 combined account for 30 records, a sharp concentration for a field this size.
- C22B dominates at 44.0% of records, meaning extraction and refining claims are the densest single layer to search around before filing anything adjacent.
- China leads receiving offices with 19 filings ahead of Russia's 13 and WIPO's 7, showing where examination exposure is concentrated rather than evenly spread.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 75 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Nonferrous metallurgy patenting in this dataset spans 75 published records filed or published between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off, drawn from a search string tying ore composition, metal recovery, separation reagents, process residue and mechanical-property claims to nonferrous metal processing and base metal metallurgy. The scope is narrow by design: it captures the extraction, refining and testing layer rather than the broader downstream alloy-fabrication literature. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent year in any trend understates real filing activity.
The assignee ranking covers 57 companies, counted in records rather than raw document volume, and the field shows a leader well ahead of the pack alongside a long tail of single- or double-filing entrants. Receiving-office data points to China and Russia as the two jurisdictions carrying the bulk of examination exposure, with WIPO PCT filings acting as the bridge to wider territorial coverage.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 75 records: how filing activity moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A shallow, uneven filing curve
Filings run from 1 record in 2017 to a peak of 4 in 2019, with the 2026 figure of 1 reflecting a partial year rather than a real drop-off. With fewer than four complete years once publication lag is factored in, no reliable growth rate can be stated from this trend alone.
Extraction and refining carry the field
C22B (metal extraction and refining) appears in 44.0% of the 75 records, more than three times the next largest class. B23K (welding, soldering and brazing) sits at 16.0%, with C01G, C01B, C22C and G01N each near 10-11% — a cluster of secondary classes rather than a second dominant one. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be summed into a single total.
Shares are the percentage of the 75 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Nonferrous Metallurgy Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about nonferrous metallurgy patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records carrying the most citations
New and improved system for processing various chemicals and materials
The filing describes a closed-loop, emission-free processing matrix for multiple source feedstocks, covering pretreatment, isolation and recycling of poisoning materials, and recovery of separated metals, sulfur, water, sulfuric acid and refined petroleum products alongside energy outputs such as heat and carbon dioxide.Filed by Transtar Group, Ltd., published 2016-02-18. Cited 860 times within this corpus, the highest citation count in scope.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20160045841A1 | New and improved system for processing various chemicals and materials | 860 |
| 2 | WO2014153570A2 | New and improved system for processing various chemicals and materials | 219 |
| 3 | US3958985A | Extraction method for non-ferrous metals | 53 |
| 4 | US20100136369A1 | High strength and toughness steel structures by friction stir welding | 41 |
| 5 | US4667149A | Precision nondestructive testing of metals | 37 |
| 6 | CN107805741A | 一种钛镍记忆合金薄板的制备方法 | 28 |
| 7 | US4168156A | Method of and electric furnace for processing nonferrous molten slags | 26 |
| 8 | RU2113526C1 | Method for processing rebellious ores of noble metals | 21 |
| 9 | WO2010059201A2 | High strength and toughness steel structures by friction stir welding | 19 |
| 10 | CN102676828A | 一种从铅/铋基合金中提取金、银的设备 | 16 |
Citation counts favour older records that have had more time to accumulate references; treat them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not a ranking of current technical importance.
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 means for filing decisions
Three read-outs from the concentration, classification and citation data above.
A dense core, then a long tail
The top 5 assignees combined hold 30 of the 75 records in scope, and the top 10 extend that to 42 records (56.0%). Below that line, the ranking of 57 companies thins quickly into single- and double-filing entrants, which is where freedom-to-operate searches need the most care rather than the least.
Extraction claims dominate the layer
C22B alone covers close to half the corpus, with welding-related B23K a distant second at 16.0%. A cluster of classes — C01G, C01B, C22C and G01N — each sit near 10-11%, suggesting the secondary claim space is spread thin across compounds, alloys and testing rather than consolidated in one adjacent branch.
Examination exposure sits with China and Russia
China (19) and Russia (13) together account for the largest share of receiving-office activity, ahead of WIPO PCT (7), Australia (6), Japan (6) and EPO (5). That split matters for anyone mapping where a competitor's granted claims would actually bite versus where they only have a published application.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to nonferrous metallurgy patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and who is filing together
The leader in this ranking sits well ahead of fifth and tenth place, and a small cluster of co-filing assignees shows where collaborative filing patterns exist.
One assignee well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 9 records against 4 at fifth place and 2 at tenth — a gap wide enough that displacing the leader's position would require sustained filing, not a single application.
A small cluster files jointly
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with the strongest link appearing 4 times and two others appearing 3 times each. This points to a specific cluster of related entities filing together repeatedly rather than a broadly collaborative field.
No leader shows recent-year activity
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum shows zero filings in the latest year, consistent with the shallow, partial-year tail of the overall filing trend rather than a sign that the leaders have exited the field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| ExxonMobil Technology and Engineering Company | 0 | — |
| Monsanto Company (USA) | 0 | — |
| CHEMSEP CORP | 0 | — |
| AT&T Corp | 0 | — |
| TRANSTAR GRP | 0 | — |
| BRADLEY RANDALL | 0 | — |
| OZEKCIN ADNAN | 0 | — |
| KALPAN ALLEN | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The concentration and classification data point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy or white-space filing.
Map the C22B core claim-by-claim
Almost half the corpus sits in extraction and refining. A claim-chart review of the leading assignee's granted claims in this class is the fastest way to see what is actually blocked versus merely published.
Explore in EurekaTrack the long tail for emerging entrants
Below the top 10, filing is thin and scattered across 57 ranked companies. Watching this tail for repeat filers is the earliest signal of a new entrant building a position before it shows up in the concentration figures.
Explore in EurekaTest the under-claimed branches
Separation reagent selectivity and phase-transformation testing sit outside the dense C22B core. A first claim drafted around a specific reagent-selectivity mechanism has more open space to work with than another extraction-process filing.
Explore in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The ranking in this dataset covers 57 assignees, with the leading one holding 9 records against 4 at fifth place and 2 at tenth place — a clear drop-off rather than a gradual slope. The top 5 assignees combined account for 30 of the 75 records in scope (40.0%), and the top 10 extend that to 42 records (56.0%). Below that line the field spreads thin across single- and double-filing entrants, so a full competitive map needs to look past the named leaders into that tail.
Metal extraction and refining, IPC class C22B, appears in 44.0% of the 75 records in scope, making it by far the densest single layer. Welding, soldering and brazing (B23K) follows at 16.0%, with compounds, alloys and material-testing classes each sitting near 10-11%. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should be read as overlapping coverage, not a breakdown of a fixed total.
Among the receiving offices tracked, China leads with 19 filings and Russia follows with 13, together accounting for the bulk of examination activity in this dataset. WIPO PCT filings (7) sit behind those two, with Australia, Japan and Europe each in the mid-single digits. This split is useful for prioritising where a freedom-to-operate search needs the deepest jurisdictional coverage.
The filing trend in this dataset runs from 1 record in 2017 to a peak of 4 in 2019, with 2026 showing only 1 record so far because that year is still partial. There are fewer than four complete years once the roughly 18-month publication lag is accounted for, so no reliable growth rate can be stated from this trend. Treat the recent-year numbers as understated rather than as evidence of a slowdown.
The classification data shows a small cluster of secondary classes — compounds of other metals, non-metallic inorganic compounds, alloys, and material analysis and testing — each covering only 10-11% of records, well below the dominant extraction and refining class. Separation reagent selectivity and phase-transformation testing protocols in particular sit outside the densest claim area. These branches carry comparatively light claim density in this corpus, which makes them a more realistic target for a first-to-file position than another extraction-process claim.
Research Nonferrous Metallurgy Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole nonferrous metallurgy 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.