Photocatalysis Design Optimization Patent Landscape 2026
- Filing has gone flat, not up. the midpoint year (2022) sits at just 1 family and the peak (2020) tops out at 3 — this is a shallow, unconsolidated field, not a growth curve.
- The citation leaders are decades old. the most-cited record, US5439652A, dates to 1995 and still carries 108 citations — newer filings have not displaced the foundational reactor-design art.
- Filing concentrates in the US and thins out fast. 24 of the tracked filings route through the United States, with Canada, India, WIPO and Europe each taking single-digit shares.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 42 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
A narrow, US-anchored field with an old center of gravity
Across 42 patent families filed between 2015 and 2026, photocatalysis design optimization reads as a small, technically dense niche rather than a fast-moving battleground. Filing activity peaked at only 3 families in 2020 and the trend since has been flat to declining, which for a field this size means the claim space has not been aggressively re-staked in recent years. The IPC spread is telling: B01J (catalysis and chemical/physical processes) anchors 39 of the 42 records, with B01D (separation) and C02F (water treatment) trailing as the dominant downstream applications.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025-2026 tail in any trend chart understates true recent activity — treat the last one to two years as provisional rather than as evidence of a slowdown.
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 42-family dataset: how filing has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the technical weight.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
From 2 families in 2017 to a peak of 3 in 2020, the trend line has stayed essentially flat, with 2022 sitting at just 1 family. There is no inflection point in this dataset that signals a new wave of investment; the most recent years should be read as undercounted due to publication lag rather than as a real drop-off.
IPC subclass distribution
B01J dominates at 39 of 42 records, confirming that most activity is framed as catalytic process or reactor claims rather than pure separation or water-treatment claims. B01D (26) and C02F (18) show where the downstream application sits, while smaller counts in A62D, B09B, C25B, B82Y and H01G mark adjacent uses — detox, waste handling, electrolysis, nanomaterials and capacitors — that intersect with photocatalytic reactor design without being its core.
Shares are the percentage of the 42 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Photocatalysis Design Optimization with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about photocatalysis design optimization and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe citation leaders still set the terms
US5439652A — Use of controlled periodic illumination for an improved method of photocatalysis and an improved reactor design
An improved photocatalytic method for removing organic contaminants from fluid or gas phases and a photoreactor design which allows exposure of photoreactive material to controlled periodic illumination. An improved method for improving the photoefficiency of a photocatalytic process comprising continuous illumination of the photocatalyst at a decreased light intensity.Filed by The Regents of the University of Colorado and issued in 1995, this record leads the corpus with 108 citations — more than double the next most-cited filing.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5439652A | Use of controlled periodic illumination for an improved method of photocatalysis and an improved reactor desi… | 108 |
| 2 | US6309611B1 | Apparatus for low flux photocatalytic pollution control | 49 |
| 3 | EP1491218A1 | Illuminator capable of cleaning air | 41 |
| 4 | US6827911B1 | Photoreactor with self-contained photocatalyst recapture | 36 |
| 5 | US6342128B1 | Method and apparatus for decoupled thermo-photocatalytic pollution control | 32 |
| 6 | US20010050218A1 | Apparatus and method for low flux photocatalytic pollution control | 31 |
| 7 | US8207081B1 | Nanocomposite for photocatalytic Hydrogen production and method for its preparation | 28 |
| 8 | US20030085111A1 | Apparatus for high FLUX photocatalytic pollution control using a rotating fluidized bed reactor | 26 |
| 9 | US6315870B1 | Method for high flux photocatalytic pollution control | 26 |
| 10 | US6582666B2 | Apparatus for high flux photocatalytic pollution control using a rotating fluidized bed reactor | 22 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favor older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate references — read this table as a map of influence on the field's vocabulary, not as a ranking 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 say about where this field actually sits
Three signals stand out once you look past the raw filing count: a flat trend, an old citation core, and a filing footprint that barely leaves the United States.
A shallow curve with no recent surge
No year in this dataset clears 3 families, and the 2022 midpoint sits at just 1. That is consistent with a field where the core reactor-design and illumination concepts were staked out early and have not been aggressively re-filed since.
Influence sits with 1990s-2000s reactor patents
The five most-cited records in this corpus were all filed before the 2015 window this landscape otherwise tracks, led by US5439652A at 108 citations and US6309611B1 at 49. Anyone filing new reactor-design claims is filing against, and likely citing, this older art.
Filing is US-centric with thin international cover
The United States accounts for 24 of the tracked filings, roughly three times Canada's count (8) and six times India's or WIPO's (4 each). Europe trails at 2. A strategy built only around US filing leaves most other jurisdictions genuinely open.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to photocatalysis design optimization, with the prior art for and against each one.
A fragmented field with a handful of repeat co-filers
With only 10 co-assignee pairs across 42 families, most records here are single-assignee filings. The strongest collaboration signal is a small cluster of individual inventors who co-file repeatedly rather than a corporate consolidation pattern.
No assignee is currently active
Every named assignee in the momentum data — from university programs to the individual co-filers — shows 0 filings in the latest tracked year. Given the ~18-month publication lag, this likely reflects reporting delay rather than an actual halt in R&D.
A tight inventor cluster, not a corporate bloc
ROEDER JEFFREY F, PETRUSKA MELISSA A and JAMES TREVOR E co-file with each other at the same frequency (3 pairings each), forming the densest collaboration triangle in a dataset where most other assignees file alone.
University research programs anchor the science
Universities — including University of Central Florida, Board of Regents, The University of Texas System and University of Salerno — make up a visible share of assignees, consistent with a field still driven by fundamental reactor and catalyst research rather than product-line consolidation by a handful of corporates.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| University of Central Florida | 0 | — |
| Board of Regents, The University of Texas System | 0 | — |
| University of Salerno | 0 | — |
| ROEDER JEFFREY F | 0 | — |
| PETRUSKA MELISSA A | 0 | — |
| JAMES TREVOR E | 0 | — |
| United Arab Emirates University | 0 | — |
| The Board of Governors of Colorado State University | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with an old, well-cited core and thin recent filing — the next step is deciding whether that gap is opportunity or dead ground.
Check freshness against the filing lag
Before concluding the field has stalled, pull the most recent 18-24 months of filings separately — publication lag means 2025-2026 activity is still arriving.
Explore live filings in Eureka →Map the citation core against your own claims
Run a design-around check against the five most-cited records, starting with US5439652A, before drafting new reactor or illumination-control claims.
Run a citation check in Eureka →Test the under-claimed sub-areas
The gate chips above — periodic-illumination control, continuous-flow recapture, light-distribution modelling — show low dedicated filing; validate freedom-to-operate before committing R&D there.
Search white space in Eureka →Common questions about this landscape
Based on this dataset, filing has been flat rather than growing: the peak year (2020) reached only 3 families and the 2022 midpoint dropped to 1. That said, publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any trend chart will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. The honest read is a small, steady niche rather than a field in decline or in a boom.
The most-cited record in this corpus is US5439652A, 'Use of controlled periodic illumination for an improved method of photocatalysis and an improved reactor design,' filed by The Regents of the University of Colorado and carrying 108 citations. It is followed by US6309611B1 (49 citations) and EP1491218A1 (41 citations). These older filings still set the technical vocabulary that newer reactor-design claims are written against.
The United States dominates this dataset with 24 of the tracked filings, well ahead of Canada (8), India (4), WIPO/PCT (4) and Europe (2). If your strategy is US-only, you are matching where most prior art already sits rather than opening new ground. Filing into Europe or via PCT, where coverage is thinner, may leave more room to establish an independent position.
Within the B01J/B01D/C02F overlap, specific pockets show little dedicated filing: periodic-illumination duty-cycle control, photocatalyst recapture in continuous-flow reactors, light-distribution modelling for scale-up, and the crossover between photocatalytic and electrolytic detox (C25B). These are narrower than the field as a whole, so a focused claim there is more likely to clear prior art than a broad reactor-design claim.
Ownership is fragmented rather than concentrated: there are only 10 co-assignee pairs across 42 families, and the strongest collaboration cluster is three individual inventors (ROEDER JEFFREY F, PETRUSKA MELISSA A, JAMES TREVOR E) who co-file with each other at equal frequency. Universities also appear as repeat assignees. No single corporate entity dominates the way you would see in a more mature, consolidated technology area.
Research Photocatalysis Design Optimization in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole photocatalysis design optimization 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.