Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- 43.6% of all 989 records sit with the top 5 assignees, but the remaining tenth-place holder has just 19 records — a long tail beneath a concentrated top.
- Filings rose 113% from 56 in 2021 to 119 in 2024, the last year the dataset treats as complete before publication lag thins later counts.
- Separation processes dominate, with B01D present on 55.2% of records, while gas-turbine and steam-plant integration claims (F02C, F01K) sit well behind at roughly a tenth each.
Filing growth compares 2021 (56 records) with 2024 (119) — 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 989 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Post-combustion carbon capture is the set of technologies that pull carbon dioxide out of flue gas after fuel has already burned, rather than before or during combustion. The claim space spans amine and other sorbent chemistries, the separation hardware that contacts gas with solvent, and the plant-level integration that routes heat and CO2 between a generation unit, a capture unit and any downstream utilization step. This dataset covers 989 published records filed or published between 2015 and the 2026-08-31 cut-off, ranked across 100 assignees by family count.
Because a single filing can carry several IPC classes, the technology composition below is read against the full record count, not against itself — a record claiming both a solvent chemistry and a turbine integration shows up in both subclasses. That overlap is informative: it marks where chemistry claims and plant-integration claims are being bundled into the same filing.
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 split
Two views of the same 989-record set: how filing volume moved year over year, and how the underlying claims distribute across separation, chemistry and plant-integration classes.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings climbed from 21 in 2017 to a peak of 119 in 2024, including the +113% run from 56 (2021) to 119 (2024). 2025 and 2026 show lower counts, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, not a slowdown — treat 2024 as the last complete year.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
B01D separation processes appear on 55.2% of the 989 records, more than double the next class. C01B inorganic-compound chemistry sits at 22.2%, and the turbine- and steam-plant integration classes (F02C, F01K, F01D) each cover roughly a tenth of records — evidence that plant-level integration claims are a secondary, not primary, filing strategy relative to the separation and sorbent chemistry itself.
Shares are the percentage of the 989 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about post-combustion carbon capture patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this landscape
Arrangement of a carbon dioxide generation plant, a capture plant and a carbon dioxide utilization plant and method for its operation
The method for operating an arrangement of a generation plant, a carbon dioxide capture plant and a carbon dioxide utilization plant includes generating carbon dioxide containing flue gas, supplying the carbon dioxide containing flue gas to the capture plant, separating a carbon dioxide stream from the carbon dioxide containing flue gas, supplying the utilization plant with the carbon dioxide stream, supplying the utilization plant with water, generating syngas at the utilization plant, supplying heat discharged from the utilization plant to the generation plant and/or to the capture plant and/or using it within the utilization plant.US20160195270A1, filed by General Electric Technology GmbH, published 2016-07-07 — a plant-level integration claim linking generation, capture and downstream utilization through shared heat flow.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4824441A | Method and composition for decreasing emissions of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides | 150 |
| 2 | WO2010072710A2 | Power plant with co2 capture | 102 |
| 3 | US20090025555A1 | Sorbent fiber compositions and methods of temperature swing adsorption | 100 |
| 4 | WO2007012143A1 | Recovery of carbon dioxide from FLUE gases | 100 |
| 5 | WO2008009049A1 | Co2 capture using solar thermal energy | 83 |
| 6 | US20110289898A1 | Combined cycle power plant with flue gas recirculation | 79 |
| 7 | US20110289899A1 | Combined cycle power plant with flue gas recirculation | 64 |
| 8 | US20100005966A1 | Co2 capture using solar thermal energy | 58 |
| 9 | US8133308B2 | Sorbent fiber compositions and methods of temperature swing adsorption | 57 |
| 10 | US20150047505A1 | Metal-organic frameworks (MOF) for gas capture | 56 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate references — read this table as a map of influential prior art, not of current filing activity.
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
The concentration figures, the growth curve and the class split each point to a different kind of risk or opportunity for someone deciding where to file next.
The top of the field is dense, the middle is not
Five assignees hold 43.6% of all 989 records, and the top 10 combined reach 55.1%. Below that, the tenth-ranked assignee has only 19 records — a sharp drop from the leader's 164. That gap means differentiated claims are still possible outside the leading names, but anyone filing near the leaders' core separation or sorbent chemistry should expect dense prior art.
Growth is real but concentrated in a few years
Filings rose from 56 in 2021 to 119 in 2024, the dataset's peak year. That three-year run is the strongest signal of sustained interest in this set. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are lower, but publication lag of roughly 18 months means those years are still filling in rather than showing an actual decline.
Separation hardware, not plant integration, is the crowded lane
B01D separation processes appear on more than half of all 989 records, well ahead of C01B inorganic chemistry at 22.2%. The turbine- and steam-plant integration classes each sit near a tenth of records, suggesting that most applicants are still claiming the separation or sorbent step itself rather than the surrounding plant architecture.
Filing strategy still centres on a handful of offices
The United States leads receiving offices at 219 records, ahead of Europe at 185 and WIPO/PCT filings at 160. Australia, Canada and India each sit well below that, at 87, 78 and 60 respectively, marking them as secondary but active jurisdictions for this technology.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to post-combustion carbon capture patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders combine plant-equipment manufacturers, national research bodies and specialty chemical firms. Momentum in the most recent tracked year is uneven even among the largest names, which changes who to watch going forward versus who simply built the largest existing portfolio.
A wide gap over the field
The leading assignee holds 164 records against 43 for the fifth-ranked entrant and 19 for the tenth — a steep drop-off that marks this as a leader-and-field structure rather than several comparably sized competitors.
Recent-year activity does not track historical rank
Nuovo Pignone Technologies filed 6 records in the latest tracked year, down 78% year over year, while several other historically large filers including Alstom Technology, Calix and BASF show zero filings in the same year. That divergence suggests the current wave of activity is not simply an extension of past leaders.
Research-industry pairings anchor some of the deepest filing
The strongest co-assignee relationship in this dataset pairs Georgia Tech Research Corporation with ExxonMobil Technology & Engineering across 18 records, well ahead of the next strongest pairing at 8. Ten such co-assignee pairs exist in total, pointing to a pattern of applied-research partnerships rather than purely solo corporate filing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Nuovo Pignone Tecnologie S.r.l. | 6 | -78% |
| Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) | 3 | +50% |
| Alstom Technology Ltd | 0 | — |
| Calix Ltd | 0 | — |
| General Electric Technology GmbH | 0 | -100% |
| BASF SE | 0 | -100% |
| Mitsubishi Power Europe Ltd | 0 | — |
| Georgia Tech Research Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next questions depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy or identifying acquisition targets.
Map claims against the leader's 164-record portfolio
Before filing near the core separation or sorbent chemistry, check which specific claim elements the leading assignee already holds across its 164 records, since that density is where design-around risk is highest.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaTrack the co-filed research pairs
The Georgia Tech and ExxonMobil pairing, and the nine other co-assignee relationships in this dataset, mark where applied research partnerships are producing joint filings — useful signals for licensing or collaboration scouting.
Trace co-assignee networks in EurekaRevisit 2025–2026 counts once publication catches up
The lower filing counts shown for 2025 and 2026 reflect publication lag, not a real drop in activity. Re-run this view in a future cycle once those years have had time to fill in before drawing conclusions about a slowdown.
Set up trend tracking in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
One assignee leads with 164 records in this dataset, well ahead of the fifth-ranked entrant at 43 and the tenth-ranked at 19. The top 5 assignees combined hold 43.6% of all 989 records in scope, and the top 10 combined hold 55.1%. Below the top 10 the field thins into a long tail of smaller filers, so a single-figure answer to 'who leads' understates how fragmented the rest of the field is.
Filings grew sharply between 2021 and 2024, rising from 56 to 119 records, a 113% increase over three years and the dataset's peak so far. Counts drop for 2025 and 2026, but that is expected: publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years always look artificially low in any patent dataset. Treat 2024 as the last complete year and do not read the recent dip as an actual slowdown.
Separation processes under IPC class B01D appear on 55.2% of all 989 records, making it by far the most heavily claimed area. Non-metallic and inorganic compound chemistry (C01B) follows at 22.2%, while gas-turbine, steam-plant and general turbine integration classes each cover roughly a tenth of records. Because a single filing can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100%, reflecting how often separation and chemistry claims are bundled with plant-level integration claims in the same document.
Relative to the dense B01D separation and C01B chemistry classes, branches such as solar-assisted sorbent regeneration, electrolytic CO2 conversion integration under C25B, and temperature-swing adsorption fiber sorbents show much lower filing density in this dataset. These are not guaranteed gaps — they may reflect smaller addressable markets rather than pure oversight — but they are areas where the core separation-hardware claim space is not already saturated by the leading assignees.
The most-cited record in this dataset is US4824441A, covering methods for decreasing sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions, cited 150 times, followed by filings on power-plant CO2 capture and temperature-swing sorbent fiber compositions. High citation counts mostly reflect age — older filings have had more time to accumulate citations within a searched corpus — so this list is best read as a map of foundational prior art rather than a signal of which technologies are currently most active.
Research Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole post-combustion carbon capture 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.