Nutrient Recovery Wastewater Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- Concentration at the top. The top 5 assignees hold 66.0% of all 159 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 93.1% — a field with a short list of entities to watch, not a fragmented one.
- Filing is accelerating, not maturing. The trend dips to 0 at the 2022 midpoint and climbs afterward, with the tracked peak in 2017 at 11 filings — the shape of a field still being staked out, not wound down.
- Wastewater treatment claims dominate, but fermentation and fertiliser classes are close behind. C02F covers 64.2% of the 159 records, while C12P (27.0%) and C05F (23.9%) show the recovery step and end-product framing are both active claim targets.
What this patent set covers
This landscape tracks patent filings addressing nutrient and resource recovery from wastewater — technologies that pull phosphorus, ammonia, and other recoverable products out of waste streams rather than treating them as pollutants to be removed and discarded. The search combines terms for struvite recovery, ammonia stripping, and nutrient recovery with claim-level language around yield, product quality, energy balance, and regulatory acceptance, capturing filings that go beyond removal efficiency to address whether the recovered product is commercially usable.
159 records are in scope, spanning receiving offices from the United States and Europe through to India, Canada, WIPO's PCT route, and South Africa. Filing activity concentrates in a small set of assignees, and the technology composition points to a field where the separation and recovery hardware (C02F, B01D) is more heavily claimed than the downstream fertiliser product itself (C05F, C05C) — a gap worth checking before assuming freedom to operate on the output side.
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 159 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, the technology shares add up to more than 100% — read each one against the 159-record total, not against each other.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Tracked filings peak at 11 in 2017, fall to 0 at the 2022 midpoint, then climb back through to 2026 — read the final year as partial, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. The pattern reads as renewed rather than sustained interest: a first wave of filing activity, a quiet stretch, and a second wave still building.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
C02F (water and wastewater treatment) appears in 64.2% of the 159 records, confirming that most filings anchor on the treatment process itself. C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis, 27.0%) and C05F (organic and waste-derived fertilisers, 23.9%) show two distinct downstream framings — biological conversion versus end-product formulation — while B01D (separation processes, 23.3%) and C01C (ammonia and nitrogen compounds, 17.0%) cover the mechanical and chemical recovery steps in between.
Shares are the percentage of the 159 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Nutrient and Resource Recovery from Wastewater with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about nutrient and resource recovery from wastewater and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this set
Nutrient recovery methods and uses thereof (US20120074058A1)
The filing describes a solid-liquid separation method for bio-waste material that adds cationic polyelectrolytes ahead of centrifugation, improving downstream separation. The resulting liquid fraction is positioned for further nutrient recovery steps — phosphate precipitation and ammonia stripping — or for direct reuse as a feedstock diluent.Abstract trimmed for length; full claims available in Eureka.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20090206028A1 | Combined nutrient recovery and biogas scrubbing system integrated in series with animal manure anaerobic dige… | 100 |
| 2 | US20140033776A1 | Organics and nutrient recovery from anaerobic digester residues | 56 |
| 3 | US20140346108A1 | Organics and nutrient recovery from anaerobic digester residues | 50 |
| 4 | US20150329399A1 | Nutrient recovery process | 49 |
| 5 | US20090250401A1 | Integrated bio-digestion facility | 39 |
| 6 | US7927491B2 | Integrated bio-digestion facility | 34 |
| 7 | US20120261338A1 | Methods and apparatus for struvite recovery using upstream phosphate injection | 30 |
| 8 | US7909995B2 | Combined nutrient recovery and biogas scrubbing system integrated in series with animal manure anaerobic dige… | 30 |
| 9 | WO2012109737A1 | Organics and nutrient recovery from anaerobic digester residues | 29 |
| 10 | US20120118035A1 | Nutrient recovery systems and methods | 29 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a ranking of current commercial 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 say about this field
Three findings that shape how a newcomer should read this landscape before drafting claims or scoping freedom-to-operate work.
A short list controls most of the filing volume
The top 5 assignees account for 66.0% of all 159 records in scope, and the top 10 extend that to 93.1%. For a field with 65 ranked companies, that is a steep drop-off — most of the remaining entities appear as single or low-count filers rather than sustained programmes.
The trend dipped before it climbed
Filing activity peaked early at 11 in 2017, dropped to 0 by the 2022 midpoint, and has been building again since. That shape — an early peak, a trough, a second climb — suggests the field is being re-entered rather than steadily built out, and the most recent years are still understated given typical publication lag.
Treatment-side claims outweigh product-side claims
C02F (treatment) covers 64.2% of records versus 23.9% for C05F (fertiliser products) and 8.2% for C05C (nitrogen fertilisers specifically). The recovery hardware is more densely claimed than the commercial output, which is where a newcomer focused on product formulation or market-ready fertiliser specs may find more open ground.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to nutrient and resource recovery from wastewater, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gate sits
The assignee ranking spans 65 companies, but the leader alone holds 27 of the 159 records, and fifth place still holds 17 — a gap that narrows quickly by tenth place, at 5. New entrants are not competing against a flat field; they are competing against a handful of programmes with a decade of continuation filings behind them.
One assignee sets the pace
The leading assignee holds 27 of the 159 records in scope, well ahead of the field. Any freedom-to-operate check in this space should start with that portfolio before moving down the ranking.
A cluster of established filers
Fifth place holds 17 records, and the top five together account for 66.0% of all filings in scope. This tier reads as active R&D programmes rather than opportunistic single filings.
Steep drop-off after the top ten
Tenth place holds only 5 records, and the top ten collectively reach 93.1% of all 159 records. Almost everyone outside that group is a low-volume or single-filing entrant, which is where licensing or acquisition targets are more likely to sit than head-on litigation risk.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Anaergia | 0 | — |
| Ductor | 0 | — |
| Himark Biogas Inc. | 0 | — |
| GSR Solutions LLC | 0 | — |
| DVO, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Highmark Renewables Res Partnership | 0 | — |
| University of South Florida | 0 | — |
| ZHAO QUANBAO | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The numbers above answer where the field stands; the next step is usually narrower — checking a specific claim, a specific assignee, or a specific white-space branch against your own filing plans.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the leader's portfolio
With one assignee holding 27 of 159 records, a targeted claim comparison against that portfolio is a faster first step than a full-field search.
Start a portfolio check in EurekaMap the white space in fertiliser-product claims
C05F and C05C sit well below C02F in filing share, which may leave room to claim specific product formulations or certification pathways ahead of competitors.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions on nutrient recovery patents
One assignee leads the ranked field with 27 of the 159 records in scope, noticeably ahead of the rest of the ranking. The top five assignees combined hold 66.0% of all records, and the top ten hold 93.1%, so filing activity is concentrated among a small group rather than spread evenly across the 65 companies in the ranking. Anyone assessing competitive risk in this space should start with that leading portfolio and the four filers immediately behind it.
The filing trend shows an early peak of 11 filings in 2017, a drop to 0 by the 2022 midpoint, and renewed growth since. That pattern points to a technology being re-entered after a quiet period rather than one in steady decline. The most recent years should be read as understated, since patent publication typically lags the original filing date by around 18 months.
Water and wastewater treatment claims under IPC class C02F appear in 64.2% of the 159 records in scope, making it the dominant category. Fermentation and enzymatic synthesis (C12P) and organic fertiliser production (C05F) follow at 27.0% and 23.9% respectively, and separation processes such as filtration (B01D) sit close behind at 23.3%. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these figures overlap rather than sum to a whole.
The technology composition shows treatment-side classes like C02F far more heavily claimed than product-side classes like C05F and especially C05C (nitrogen fertilisers, at 8.2%). That gap suggests more open claim space around the commercial fertiliser product — formulation, quality standards, and certification — than around the recovery process itself. A first claim in this direction would likely centre on product specification or regulatory-grade quality rather than the extraction step.
Highly concentrated at the top and thin below it: the top five assignees hold 66.0% of the 159 records, and the top ten hold 93.1%, out of a ranking of 65 companies total. Fifth place holds 17 records while tenth place holds only 5, showing a steep drop after the leading group. This shape means most competitive and licensing activity is likely to involve a small number of established filers rather than the long tail of single-filing entrants.
Research Nutrient and Resource Recovery from Wastewater in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole nutrient and resource recovery from wastewater 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.