Platinum Group Metal Processing Patents: Leaders & Filing Trends 2026
- Concentrated at the top. the top 5 assignees hold 30.4% of all 359 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 49.0% — half the field sits with ten organisations.
- Filings have pulled back hard. from a 2021 peak of 39 filings to 8 in 2024, a -79% move over three years, though 2025-2026 figures are still filling in under publication lag.
- C22B dominates the claim space. 63.0% of records carry a metal extraction and refining classification, more than double the next most common class.
Filing growth compares 2021 (39 records) with 2024 (8) — 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 359 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 359 patent records published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine platinum group metal (PGM) concentrate processing — matte converting, selective dissolution, rhodium separation, slag cleaning — with the refining and recovery language that defines commercial-scale extraction work. The search string pairs PGM-specific terms with process-stage terms, which pulls in both dedicated PGM metallurgy filings and adjacent hydrometallurgical and catalytic-refining work that shares the same unit operations.
Filing activity peaked in 2021 and has since declined sharply, a pattern worth reading against the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication: the most recent one to two years in any trend chart are always undercounted. The technology composition below uses IPC subclasses, where a single record can carry several classes, so the shares are read against the full record count rather than against each other.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 359 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A sharp pullback from the 2021 peak
Filings ran from 4 in 2017 up to a peak of 39 in 2021, then fell to 8 by 2024 — a -79% move over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures will rise as publication lag closes, so treat the tail of the chart as incomplete rather than as a continued decline.
Extraction and refining classes dominate
C22B (metal extraction and refining) appears on 63.0% of the 359 records, with B01J (catalysis) a distant second at 32.3%. C10G, B01D, C01G and the smaller classes below them mark adjacent process steps — hydrocarbon refining crossover, separation equipment, and compound chemistry — that show up far less often and represent narrower claim territory.
Shares are the percentage of the 359 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Platinum Group Metal Processing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about platinum group metal processing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art in this space
US4685963A — Process for the extraction of platinum group metals
A process for separating platinum group metals (PGM's) from various feedstock materials, wherein a plasma arc flame is employed to produce a superheated puddle on the surface of a slag layer to accelerate the association of platinum group metals with a collector material and formation of a recoverable layer of platinum group metals and collector material.Filed by AmSouth Bank, published 1987-08-11 — one of the most-cited records in this dataset at 103 citations.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4171288A | Catalyst compositions and the method of manufacturing them | 300 |
| 2 | US4685963A | Process for the extraction of platinum group metals | 103 |
| 3 | US4975178A | Multistage reforming with interstage aromatics removal | 100 |
| 4 | US20110182786A1 | Hydrometallurgical process and method for recovering metals | 87 |
| 5 | US5236492A | Recovery of precious metal values from refractory ores | 77 |
| 6 | US4492677A | Preparative process for alkaline earth metal, aluminum-containing spinels and their use for reducing the sulf… | 70 |
| 7 | US20030183043A1 | Ultrasound enhanced process for extracting metal species in supercritical fluids | 66 |
| 8 | US4229270A | Process for the recovery of metal values from anode slimes | 60 |
| 9 | US4492678A | Preparative process for alkaline earth metal, aluminum-containing spinels and their use for reducing sulfur o… | 57 |
| 10 | US20040219082A1 | Selective recovery of aluminium, cobalt and platinum values from a spent catalyst composition | 56 |
Citation counts accumulate over time, so older records are structurally favoured — read this as a map of influential prior art, not 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 data means for a filing decision
Three read-outs from the record set that matter more than the raw counts on their own.
Half the field sits with ten organisations
The top 5 assignees combine for 30.4% of all 359 records in scope, and the top 10 for 49.0%. That leaves a long tail of single- and low-count filers competing for the remaining half — a structure where a new entrant is more likely to find open ground by working around the leaders' core claims than by out-filing them directly.
The 2021 peak has unwound sharply
Filings ran to 39 in 2021 before falling to 8 by 2024, a -79% drop across three years. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 counts will climb as records catch up — the honest reading is a post-peak correction, not a technology in decline.
Extraction and refining still anchors the field
C22B (metal extraction and refining) appears on 63.0% of records, well ahead of B01J catalysis at 32.3% and C10G hydrocarbon refining at 14.8%. Classes further down the list — C01G, C21B, C01F, C01B — each sit under 10% of records, marking the narrower, less-crowded process branches.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to platinum group metal processing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders account for roughly half the field between them, but recent-year momentum has cooled across the board — most of the tracked assignees show no filings in the latest year, consistent with the post-2021 pullback rather than any single company stepping back.
A clear leader, then a steep drop-off
The top-ranked assignee holds 29 records against 14 at fifth place and 11 at tenth — a steep early drop that flattens into the long tail making up the rest of the 359-record set.
Co-filing is rare but concentrated where it exists
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest — a Japanese university and a Japanese metal mining firm — accounts for 14 shared records. Most filers in this space patent alone rather than through joint ventures.
Latest-year activity has gone quiet across the board
Several of the more active historical assignees show zero filings in the latest tracked year, and the one with any latest-year activity logged just a single filing at 0% year-on-year growth. This lines up with the broader 2021-to-2024 pullback rather than signalling any one company exiting the space.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| EXCIR WORKS CORP | 1 | 0% |
| Molycorp Minerals LLC | 0 | — |
| Albemarle Netherlands BV | 0 | — |
| Pure Battery Technologies Pty Ltd | 0 | — |
| Kyushu University | 0 | — |
| Hatch Ltd | 0 | — |
| Sumitomo Metal Mining Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| RESSOURCES MINIERES PRO OR | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The landscape points to where claim density sits today; the next step is testing a specific process route or claim against it.
Map a specific process route against the leaders' claims
Pick one route — matte converting, selective dissolution, or slag cleaning — and check it against the filings held by the top 5 assignees before committing R&D spend.
Explore in EurekaWatch the under-claimed branches for early movers
Rhodium separation chemistry and spinel formation control carry thinner filing density; track new entrants here before the space fills in.
Set up monitoring in EurekaStress-test freedom-to-operate against the most-cited prior art
US4685963A and the other highly-cited records anchor this field's prior art; a freedom-to-operate review should start there rather than with recent filings alone.
Run an FTO check in EurekaCommon questions on PGM processing patents
The ranking covers 100 companies across 359 records in scope, with the leading assignee holding 29 records compared with 14 at fifth place and 11 at tenth. The top 5 combined hold 30.4% of all records, and the top 10 hold 49.0%, so roughly half the field sits with a small group while the remainder is spread across a long tail of lower-count filers. This structure means a full landscape review should look past the leader to the tenth-to-fiftieth positions, where meaningful but less visible activity sits.
Filings peaked at 39 in 2021 and fell to 8 by 2024, a -79% move over that three-year span. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend chart are still incomplete and will rise as more records publish. The honest read is a correction after a 2021 filing spike rather than confirmed long-term decline, and any claim about the field slowing should stop at 2024, the last complete year.
Metal extraction and refining (IPC class C22B) appears on 63.0% of the 359 records in scope, making it by far the most common classification. Catalysis-related processes (B01J) follow at 32.3%, with hydrocarbon oil refining crossover (C10G) at 14.8%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should be read as independent shares of the same 359-record base, not as parts of a whole.
US4685963A, 'Process for the extraction of platinum group metals,' describes using a plasma arc flame to create a superheated puddle on a slag layer, accelerating the association of PGMs with a collector material to form a recoverable metal layer. It is one of the most-cited records in this dataset at 103 citations, which signals it has been treated as foundational prior art by later filers working on similar slag-based recovery methods. Anyone designing a slag-cleaning or collector-based PGM recovery process should review its claims directly rather than relying on citation count alone as a proxy for current relevance.
The IPC composition shows several classes sitting well under the 63.0% share held by core extraction and refining work — compounds of other metals (C01G) at 9.7%, iron production crossover (C21B) at 5.6%, and non-metallic inorganic compounds (C01B) at 4.7%. Combined with the technically specific gaps in rhodium selective separation and spinel formation control, these lower-density classes suggest process-chemistry refinements are less contested than the core extraction routes. A first claim in these areas would likely need to be narrowly drawn around a specific reagent, temperature window, or residence-time parameter to clear the denser prior art sitting in C22B and B01J.
Research Platinum Group Metal Processing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole platinum group metal processing 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.