Lithium Extraction from Battery Leachate Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Filing already peaked. 2023 recorded 35 filings, the high point in the dataset, with the 2022 midpoint at just 6 — growth has flattened rather than accelerated into 2026.
- The top 5 hold under half. The five leading assignees account for 49.1% of all 112 records, and the top 10 for 71.4% — concentrated, but not a closed field.
- Separation science dominates the claims. C22B metal extraction and B01D separation processes each cover more than half of records, while electrolytic routes (C25C) sit at just 11.6%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (1 records) with 2024 (28) — 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 112 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 112 published patent records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that claim selective lithium extraction or recovery from leachate — the acid or chloride liquor produced when spent batteries or brines are processed. The search combines terms for solvent extraction selectivity, chloride leachate medium, lithium carbonate precipitation, ion exchange resin and raffinate recycle loop, so it captures both hydrometallurgical recycling routes and direct lithium extraction (DLE) from brine.
Filing rose steadily through the late 2010s, peaked in 2023, and has since eased — a pattern consistent across most assignees in the recent-momentum data. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in any trend chart understate real filing activity and should not be read as a slowdown on their own.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 112 records: how filing has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A flat-to-declining trend after a 2023 peak
Filings moved from 4 in 2017 to a peak of 35 in 2023, then eased back toward 2 in the still-incomplete 2026 count. The 2022 midpoint of 6 shows the run-up to the peak was compressed into a short window rather than a long steady climb, which matters for reading how durable current claim positions are.
Separation and refining classes carry the bulk of records
C22B (metal extraction and refining) appears in 67.0% of the 112 records and B01D (separation processes) in 51.8%, confirming this is primarily a separations problem rather than a purely electrochemical one. C01D (alkali-metal compounds) sits close behind at 49.1%, while C25C (electrolytic metal production) and C22C (alloys) are comparatively thin at 11.6% and 7.1% respectively — classes worth checking for open claim space.
Shares are the percentage of the 112 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Selective Lithium Extraction from Battery Leachate with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about selective lithium extraction from battery leachate and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art in this space
Process and system for recovering lithium carbonate from a saltwater
A process and system for recovering lithium carbonate from a saltwater with increased yield, using a first direct lithium extraction (DLE) step to produce a lithium recovery solution, then a second DLE pass on the resulting mother liquor. The second solution is recycled back into the first to form a mixed brine, from which further lithium carbonate is extracted — a raffinate recycle loop aimed at pushing yield higher without a second brine source.Filed by Saltworks Technologies Inc., published 2025-06-19.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CN110527836A | 一种离子交换法回收废旧镍钴锰锂离子电池中有价金属的方法 | 56 |
| 2 | US5833844A | Thermally-driven ion-exchange process for lithium recovery | 37 |
| 3 | US5681477A | Thermally-driven ion-exchange process for lithium recovery | 27 |
| 4 | US5451383A | Lithium recovery | 19 |
| 5 | US20230086861A1 | Lithium purification and conversion | 15 |
| 6 | US20230088458A1 | Lithium purification and conversion | 15 |
| 7 | CN111206161A | 一种磷酸铁锂电池废正极粉的综合利用方法 | 15 |
| 8 | US20230032153A1 | Lithium purification and conversion | 14 |
| 9 | CN113511664A | 一种从电池废料中选择性提锂制备电池级碳酸锂的方法 | 11 |
| 10 | JP2019125464A | Lithium recovery method | 11 |
Ranked by citation count within the searched corpus. Older records accumulate more citations by nature of corpus age, so treat this as a signal of influence on later filings, not of current commercial relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 stand out once the records are broken down by class, geography and citation weight.
Leadership is real but not closed
The top 5 assignees hold 49.1% of all 112 records and the top 10 hold 71.4%. That leaves close to 30% of the field spread across a long tail of 34 further ranked entrants, most with single-digit filings — room to enter, but only in branches the leaders have not already fenced off.
This is a metallurgy problem first
Two-thirds of records sit in C22B (metal extraction and refining) and half in B01D (separation processes), against only 11.6% in C25C (electrolytic production). Claims built around electrolytic or membrane-electrode approaches to lithium separation face noticeably less prior art than solvent- or resin-based routes.
The 2023 peak has not been repeated
Filing climbed from 4 in 2017 to a peak of 35 in 2023, then declined — a pattern echoed in the recent-year momentum data, where several leading assignees show zero filings in the latest year. Whether this reflects a maturing claim landscape or a lag in publication is not yet clear from filing counts alone.
Filing is US- and PCT-led, with China rising
The United States leads receiving offices with 37 filings, ahead of WIPO/PCT at 23 and China at 15. Europe, Canada and Australia each show smaller but active dockets, suggesting most applicants are still filing a US-first or PCT-first strategy rather than going direct to Asian markets.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to selective lithium extraction from battery leachate, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gate sits
The ranked assignee list covers 44 companies across the 112 records in scope — this is the complete set the data endpoint returns, not a top-50 or top-100 cut.
One assignee well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 23 of the 112 records, nearly triple the fifth-place count of 6. Recent-year momentum data shows several of this assignee's related entities recording zero filings in the latest year, which is consistent with the broader post-2023 slowdown rather than a company-specific pullback.
A tight cluster behind the leader
Fifth place sits at 6 records and tenth place at 4 — a shallow drop-off that suggests several mid-sized filers are close in size rather than one clear runner-up. This is where competitive moves are likeliest to shift the ranking order.
Filing is mostly solo, with a few tight clusters
Only 8 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest pairings link entities that are corporate affiliates of the same parent group rather than independent co-developers. Genuine cross-company joint filing is rare in this field so far.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Schlumberger Technology Corp | 0 | -100% |
| Praxair Technology Inc | 0 | — |
| Schlumberger Technology BV | 0 | — |
| Saltworks Technologies Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Schlumberger Canada Ltd | 0 | — |
| Services Petroliers Schlumberger SA | 0 | — |
| Lilac Solutions Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Xi'an Lanxiao Technology New Materials Co., Ltd. (Sunresin) | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The landscape points to specific next steps depending on whether you are scouting freedom-to-operate or evaluating a filing strategy.
Map the white space in C25C and C22C
Electrolytic and alloy-phase routes carry a fraction of the claim density seen in C22B and B01D. Before drafting, check whether that low density reflects an unexplored technical route or simply a route that has not proven commercially viable.
Explore IPC white space in EurekaWatch the leader's next moves
With the top assignee holding 23 of 112 records but showing zero filings in the latest year across related entities, a pickup in filing there would be an early signal of renewed investment in the space.
Track assignee activity in EurekaRead the most-cited prior art before drafting
The most-cited records in this set date back to the 1990s ion-exchange work, which still anchors later filings. Any new claim in thermally-driven ion exchange or lithium purification should be checked against that lineage first.
Review cited prior art in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
The ranked assignee list covers 44 companies across 112 records, and the leading assignee holds 23 of those records — well ahead of fifth place at 6. The top 5 assignees together account for 49.1% of all records and the top 10 for 71.4%, so filing is concentrated but not closed to new entrants. The remaining records are spread thinly across a long tail of smaller filers, several with only one or two records each.
Filing rose from 4 records in 2017 to a peak of 35 in 2023, then declined toward the present, with the 2022 midpoint at only 6 showing how compressed the run-up was. Recent-year momentum data shows several leading assignees at zero filings in the latest year. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025-2026 figures are understated and should not be read as a definitive slowdown yet.
Two-thirds of the 112 records (67.0%) fall under IPC class C22B, covering metal extraction and refining, with B01D separation processes close behind at 51.8% and C01D alkali-metal compounds at 49.1%. Electrolytic production methods (C25C) and alloy-related claims (C22C) are much thinner, at 11.6% and 7.1% respectively. This confirms the field is dominated by hydrometallurgical and separation chemistry rather than electrochemical extraction.
The United States leads with 37 filings, followed by the WIPO/PCT route at 23 and China at 15, with Europe, Canada and Australia each in the low teens or single digits. This distribution suggests most applicants are pursuing a US-first or PCT-first filing strategy before deciding on other jurisdictions. It also means freedom-to-operate checks should prioritise US and PCT family members first.
The most-cited record in this corpus is a Chinese filing on ion-exchange recovery of valuable metals from spent lithium-ion batteries, cited 56 times, followed by US filings on thermally-driven ion-exchange lithium recovery processes dating to the 1990s. Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records simply because they have had more time to be cited, so these numbers signal historical influence on later filings rather than current commercial importance. Anyone drafting new ion-exchange claims should review this lineage closely.
Research Selective Lithium Extraction from Battery Leachate in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole selective lithium extraction from battery leachate 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.