Proppant Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
Proppant Types and Conductivity: Patents Behind Frac Sand, Ceramic and Resin-Coated Claims
Concentrated at the top. The top 5 assignees hold 49.3% of all 982 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 73.2% — this is a field with a short list of gatekeepers, not a fragmented one. Filings peaked at 67 records in 2017. The most recent complete comparison — 2021's 19 records against 2024's 10 — shows a 47% decline over that three-year span; the low counts appearing after 2024 reflect publication lag, not a confirmed continuation of the trend.
- 1CARBO CERAMICS INC150
- 2HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES INC105
- 3SCHLUMBERGER TECH CORP96
- 4SAUDI ARABIAN OIL CO67
- 5SCHLUMBERGER CANADA LTD66
See the full proppant types and conductivity analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions about proppant patents
Who holds the most patents on proppant conductivity and crush resistance?
This dataset’s 982 records resolve to a ranked list of 100 assignees, led by a single company with 150 records, well ahead of fifth place at 66 and tenth place at 37. The top 5 assignees combined hold 49.3% of all records, and the top 10 hold 73.2%, so the field is concentrated among a small group of oilfield services and materials companies rather than spread evenly. Anyone entering this space should expect to review those leaders’ filings specifically, since generic prior-art searches will surface their patents repeatedly.
Is proppant patent filing activity increasing or slowing down?
Filings peaked at 67 records in 2017 and have generally trended down since. The clearest recent comparison, 2021’s 19 records against 2024’s 10, shows a 47% decline over that three-year span. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the very latest years in any dataset understate real activity, so 2025-2026 figures should not be read as confirmation that filing has stopped.
What’s the difference between ceramic, resin-coated and sand proppants in patent terms?
In this dataset, all three proppant types are claimed against the same core performance criteria: crush resistance, long-term conductivity, embedment resistance, sphericity, pack permeability and flowback control. Ceramic proppant claims tend to cluster with C04B (ceramics and refractories) classifications, while resin-coated and additive-based approaches show more overlap with C08K and C08G polymer classes. Frac sand claims are typically differentiated by surface treatment or coating method rather than the base material itself, since untreated sand is not novel on its own.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Proppant Types and Conductivity covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.