PFAS Removal Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- Filing peaked in 2024 at 29 families then the pace has not been matched since, and 2025-2026 figures are still understated by publication lag.
- Supercritical water oxidation is the most-cited destruction route with two of the five most-cited records built on SCWO, ahead of plasma and sorbent-based approaches.
- One assignee's momentum reversed hard the leading recent filer dropped 33% year-on-year, while several established water-treatment names show zero filings in the latest year.
Filing growth compares 2021 (6 records) with 2024 (29) — 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 104 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the PFAS removal and destruction patent record shows
The 104 families captured here sit at the intersection of adsorption media, ion exchange resins and thermal or chemical destruction routes for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Filing activity is recent and concentrated: the trend runs from effectively zero in 2017 to a peak of 29 families in 2024, which places almost the entire body of art inside a single decade. Because publication lags filing by roughly eighteen months, the apparent slowdown after 2024 partly reflects applications still working through the pipeline rather than a genuine drop in R&D. C02F (water and wastewater treatment) anchors every record in the set, with B01J catalysis and physical-process claims and B01D separation/filtration claims layered on top as secondary classifications.
Filing offices skew heavily toward the United States, with WIPO PCT filings and European filings both substantial secondary channels, and smaller but present activity in Canada, India and Singapore. That distribution points to applicants protecting core claims domestically first, then extending selectively through PCT rather than filing broadly across every water-scarce or PFAS-regulated jurisdiction.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Trend and technology composition
The filing curve and IPC breakdown together show a field that scaled quickly from a low base and is now technically broader than its early sorbent-focused framing suggests.
A short, steep filing history
Zero families in 2017 rising to a peak of 29 in 2024, with the 2022 midpoint at 11 confirms this is a young, fast-building art rather than a mature one settling into a plateau; the post-2024 numbers should be read as provisional given publication lag.
Destruction and separation share the claim space
C02F covers all 104 records as the baseline water-treatment classification, but B01J's 21 records and B01D's 10 records show meaningful claim activity in catalytic/physical destruction and in filtration hardware, with smaller pockets in inorganic compound chemistry (C01B), pigment/particle treatment (C09C) and contaminated-soil reclamation (B09C).
Shares are the percentage of the 104 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on PFAS Removal and Destruction with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about pfas removal and destruction and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing: supercritical water oxidation of loaded removal media
Removal material destruction by supercritical water oxidation for PFAS removal
Methods of treating water containing PFAS are disclosed. The methods include dosing water containing PFAS with a removal material, e.g., adsorption media, to promote loading of the removal material with PFAS, producing a slurry stream of PFAS-loaded removal material, and subjecting that slurry stream to a supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) process driven at least in part by a predetermined calorific value of the removal material. Systems for treating water containing PFAS include a contact reactor containing removal material.Filed by Evoqua Water Technologies LLC; publication and filing date are rendered above.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20200206793A1 | Sintered Wave Multi-Media Polarity Conversion Treatment Apparatus and Process for Nondestructive Removal and … | 17 |
| 2 | US20230373824A1 | Destruction of Perfluorosulfonic Acids (PFSAs) via Supercritical Water Oxidation | 12 |
| 3 | WO2022018613A1 | PFAS treatment process for liquid effluent | 12 |
| 4 | US11447401B1 | Separation columns for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) remediation | 11 |
| 5 | WO2023034274A1 | PFAS destruction using plasma at the air-water interface created by small gas bubbles | 8 |
| 6 | WO2023287893A1 | Removal material destruction by supercritical water oxidation for PFAS removal | 8 |
| 7 | WO2023154555A1 | Apparatus, system and method for PFAS removal and mineralization | 7 |
| 8 | WO2023177657A1 | PFAS removal and destruction using bioreactors followed by supercritical water oxidation | 6 |
| 9 | WO2022018472A1 | PFAS treatment process for liquid effluent | 3 |
| 10 | US20250019285A1 | Methods and Systems of PFAS Destruction using UV Irradiation at 222 Nanometers | 2 |
Citation counts favour older records in any searched corpus; treat them as a measure of influence within this dataset, 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 mean for a filing decision
Three patterns matter more than the raw counts: how concentrated the destruction-route claims are, how the most-cited records split between capture and destruction, and how volatile the leading assignees' filing pace has become.
Supercritical water oxidation leads citation influence
Two of the five most-cited records in this set are built around supercritical water oxidation of PFAS or PFAS-loaded media, ahead of single entries for sintered-media capture, liquid-effluent treatment and plasma-based destruction. That concentration suggests SCWO claims are the ones competitors and examiners are citing back against, making it the route most worth freedom-to-operate scrutiny before committing engineering resources.
The pace-setter is decelerating, not accelerating
The assignee with the highest recent-year filing count still leads the field but posted a 33% year-on-year decline, while several established water-treatment assignees show zero filings in the latest year. A cooling leader combined with quiet incumbents is more consistent with a field consolidating around already-filed claims than one still in a land grab.
Claims extend well past adsorption media
Beyond the core C02F water-treatment classification, meaningful claim volume sits in B01J (catalytic and physical destruction processes) and B01D (separation and filtration hardware), with smaller but present activity in inorganic chemistry, pigment treatment, chemical detoxification and contaminated-soil reclamation. A search limited to granular activated carbon or ion exchange alone would miss most of this breadth.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to pfas removal and destruction, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape and where the gaps sit
Filing activity is led by a mix of a fast-moving recent entrant and established water-technology firms whose activity has gone quiet in the most recent year, alongside a long tail of single-filing organisations.
A single assignee dominates recent-year volume
One assignee accounts for the largest recent-year filing count by a wide margin, though its pace fell sharply year-on-year. Watching whether this reflects a completed filing programme or a temporary pause matters more than the raw count.
Large water-technology names have gone quiet
Assignees historically associated with water treatment infrastructure show no filings in the latest year despite prior activity, which is more consistent with claims already staked out than with retreat from the space.
A long tail of single-filing organisations
Beyond the handful of repeat filers, most assignees in this dataset appear with a single family, typical of a young field where startups, engineering firms and research groups stake an initial claim without following through with a portfolio.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Kailos Technology | 8 | -33% |
| REVIVE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY LLC COLUMBUS | 1 | — |
| Evoqua Water Technologies LLC | 0 | -100% |
| SUEZ Group | 0 | — |
| SUEZ International | 0 | — |
| BASF | 0 | — |
| Calgon Carbon Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| EZRATERRA LLC | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The filing data raises specific questions about freedom to operate and open claim space that are worth resolving before committing engineering budget.
Map SCWO claims against your process design
With supercritical water oxidation carrying the heaviest citation weight among most-cited records, any destruction process using thermal or oxidative treatment of PFAS-loaded media should be checked against those specific claims early.
Explore SCWO claims in EurekaTrack the decelerating leader
A 33% year-on-year drop from the leading recent filer could mean a completed portfolio or a strategic pause; monitoring its next filing year will clarify which.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaTest the under-claimed branches
Short-chain PFAS selectivity, regeneration waste destruction and soil reclamation show thinner claim density than core adsorption media, and may offer more room for a defensible first claim.
Search white space in EurekaCommon questions on PFAS removal and destruction patents
Removal patents typically claim capture or separation of PFAS from water using media such as granular activated carbon, ion exchange resins or filtration membranes, without breaking the PFAS molecule apart. Destruction patents instead claim breaking the carbon-fluorine bond, most often through supercritical water oxidation, plasma treatment or other high-energy processes applied either to the water directly or to PFAS-loaded removal media afterward. Many recent filings, including the representative record in this dataset, combine both steps into a single claimed system, which is why IPC classifications like B01J and C02F frequently overlap on the same family.
Filing activity in this dataset is led by a mix of a fast-moving recent entrant with the highest latest-year count and several established water-treatment companies with substantial historical filings but no activity in the most recent year. Beyond these repeat filers, most assignees appear with only a single patent family, which is typical of an emerging field where many organisations file one foundational application rather than building a deep portfolio. Checking the assignee ranking directly, rather than relying on name recognition, is the more reliable way to identify who actually holds claim density in this area.
Yes, and it already carries significant claim weight in this space: two of the five most-cited records in this dataset are built specifically around supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) of PFAS or PFAS-loaded adsorption media. That citation concentration means SCWO-specific process steps, such as driving the reaction based on the calorific value of loaded media, are the claims most likely to be cited against a new filing. Anyone designing an SCWO-based destruction process should run a freedom-to-operate check against these specific records before finalising a reactor design.
The filing trend in this dataset rises from zero in 2017 to a peak of 29 families in 2024, then appears to decline in 2025 and 2026. Part of that apparent drop is real deceleration, but part of it is a data artefact: patent publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months, so 2025 and especially 2026 figures are still incomplete and will rise as more applications publish. The 2024 peak itself is a reliable data point; the years immediately after it are not yet a reliable trend signal.
Based on IPC composition and citation patterns, the thinner claim areas include regeneration and disposal of waste streams generated by removal media, sorbents selective for short-chain PFAS specifically, plasma-based destruction at gas-liquid interfaces, and contaminated-soil reclamation applications classified under B09C. These branches show materially fewer records than the core adsorption-media and ion-exchange claims that dominate the dataset, suggesting more room for a defensible first claim, though thinner filing volume in a young field can also simply mean the branch is less commercially proven rather than legally open.
Research PFAS Removal and Destruction in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole pfas removal and destruction 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.