Semi Autogenous Grinding Mills Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- 59.7% concentration. the top 5 of 37 ranked assignees account for 123 of the 206 records in scope, leaving a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants.
- Filings peaked in 2019 at 50. and fell from 21 in 2021 to 3 in 2024, an 86% drop — though 2025-26 counts are still filling in due to publication lag.
- Claim space is crushing-heavy. 84.0% of records sit in B02C (crushing, grinding & pulverising), while flotation, sieving and water treatment classes each cover under 11% of records.
Filing growth compares 2021 (21 records) with 2024 (3) — 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 206 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the semi autogenous grinding mill patent record shows
Semi autogenous grinding (SAG) mills sit at the front end of comminution circuits in mineral processing, and the patent record around them clusters tightly around mechanical and process control of the mill itself. 84.0% of the 206 records in scope carry a B02C classification — crushing, grinding and pulverising — which confirms that most filing activity is about the mill and its media, liners and discharge grates rather than downstream separation. Secondary classes such as wet separation, flotation and sieving each appear in a minority of records, suggesting that circuit-level integration claims are comparatively rare next to core mill-hardware claims.
Filing activity rose sharply through the late 2010s, peaked in 2019, and has declined since — a pattern consistent with an initial wave of instrumentation and control patents (ball charge level, mill filling, grate wear sensing) being filed and then narrowing as the core claim space filled in. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years understate real filing volume and should not be read as a genuine falloff.
Filing trends and technology composition
The dataset covers 206 published records from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, spanning receiving offices in Australia, the United States, WIPO, Canada, Chile and Europe.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings climbed from 5 in 2017 to a peak of 50 in 2019, then fell to 21 by 2021 and to 3 by 2024 — an 86% decline over that three-year span. Treat 2025 and 2026 as incomplete rather than as evidence of a continued slide, since publication lag means recent filings have not all surfaced yet.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
B02C (crushing, grinding & pulverising) covers 84.0% of the 206 records, far ahead of the next tier — B03B wet separation at 10.2%, B03D flotation at 8.7%, and B07B sieving & sorting at 8.3%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares sum to well over 100% and should be read against the full record total, not against each other as mutually exclusive slices.
Shares are the percentage of the 206 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Semi Autogenous Grinding Mills with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about semi autogenous grinding mills and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in the field
Lab-scale continuous semi-autogenous (SAG) grinding mill
A wet continuous semi-autogenous (SAG) mill system includes a frame; a rotatable cylinder supported within the frame thereby to be rotatable about a generally horizontal rotational axis with respect to the frame, the rotatable cylinder incorporating a plurality of discharge ports about its periphery and an interior spiral blade for coaxing material within the rotatable cylinder that is downstream of the discharge ports upstream towards the discharge ports during rotation; a variable speed driving system for driving the rotatable cylinder about the rotational axis; and a SAG mill removably fastened to the rotatable cylinder upstream of the discharge ports.Filed by Starkey & Associates Inc., published 2023-07-06 — illustrates how lab-scale simulation hardware for SAG circuits is being claimed alongside full industrial mill designs.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US3078050A | Autogenous grinding process and mill systems to perform the same | 40 |
| 2 | WO2021019551A1 | System and method for real-time self-optimization of manufacturing operations | 34 |
| 3 | US3942727A | Grinding plant | 27 |
| 4 | US20140150524A1 | Real-Time Monitoring System to Determine Wear of Grate Ribs in Semi-Autogenous Mills, to Detect Clogging Cond… | 20 |
| 5 | WO2019204882A1 | Grinding media, system and method for optimising comminution circuit | 11 |
| 6 | WO2023242752A1 | System and method for continuous optimization of mineral processing operations | 10 |
| 7 | US20200376497A1 | Low energy process for metal extraction | 9 |
| 8 | US20130248626A1 | Use of Temperature Measurements for Indirect Measurement of Process Variables in Milling Systems | 9 |
| 9 | WO2005087378A1 | Grate system | 9 |
| 10 | US20200246806A1 | Assessing the benefits of automatic grinding control using PST technology for true on-line particle size meas… | 8 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations — read them as a signal of influence on the field, not as a measure 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 mean for strategy
Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are set against each other: where citations concentrate, how classes overlap, and where receiving-office activity clusters.
Older mechanical patents still anchor the field
The most-cited record in scope, US3078050A on autogenous grinding process and mill systems, dates back well before the 2015 window and carries 40 citations — more than any filing from the current search period. Newer records on real-time monitoring and grate wear detection are catching up in citation count but have had far less time to accumulate them.
Mechanical mill claims dominate over circuit integration
With B02C present in 84.0% of records and every other class below 11%, most patent activity is still about the mill itself — liners, grates, media, ball charge — rather than how the mill talks to flotation, sieving or water-treatment stages downstream.
Filing activity clusters where the mines are
Australia leads receiving offices with 35 filings, closely followed by the United States at 34, WIPO at 23, Canada at 22 and Chile at 21 — a spread that tracks major copper, gold and iron ore mining jurisdictions rather than a single dominant filing venue.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to semi autogenous grinding mills, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Siemens AG | Inmenda GmbH | 2 |
| Magotteaux International SA | SCHNEIDER ROBERT | 1 |
Only 2 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, indicating that most SAG mill patents are filed by a single owner rather than through joint development arrangements.
Who holds the ranked positions
The assignee ranking covers 37 companies across the full 206-record dataset — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, but the complete set the data endpoint returns. The leader holds 57 records; by fifth place that falls to 10, and by tenth place to 6, which is the shape behind the 59.7% and 79.1% concentration figures.
A small group holds most of the claim space
The five leading assignees combine for 123 of the 206 records in scope. That leaves the remaining 32 ranked companies, plus any unranked filers, splitting the rest — a classic long-tail structure where a handful of equipment and technology majors set the terms of the core mill-hardware claims.
Leading filers show no fresh publications in the latest tracked year
Several of the top-ranked assignees, including the current leader, show zero publications in the most recent year, and at least one shows a -100% year-on-year change. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this reads as a reporting gap rather than a genuine stop in filing.
Joint filings are the exception, not the rule
Only two co-assignee pairings appear in the dataset, the strongest linking a large industrial conglomerate with an automation subsidiary. Most records in this field carry a single assignee, consistent with vertically integrated equipment makers protecting their own mill designs rather than co-developing with partners.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Metso Outotec Finland Oy | 0 | — |
| FLSmidth & Co. A/S | 0 | -100% |
| INTELLISENSE IO | 0 | — |
| CIDRA Corporate Services, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Goldcorp Inc. | 0 | — |
| Magotteaux International SA | 0 | — |
| NEWCREST MINING | 0 | — |
| MOLY-COP USA LLC | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a mature core claim space around mill hardware and a thinner layer of circuit-integration and monitoring claims still open for new filings.
Map freedom-to-operate against the leading assignees
With 59.7% of records held by five companies, a freedom-to-operate check for any new SAG mill hardware design should start with those assignees' claim scope before drafting.
Run an FTO screen in EurekaTrack the monitoring and sensing sub-branches
Grate wear detection and real-time optimisation records are among the most-cited despite being newer than the mechanical core, suggesting active examiner and competitor attention worth monitoring going forward.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions about SAG mill patents
The ranking covers 37 companies across 206 records in scope, and it is heavily concentrated: the top five assignees together hold 123 records, or 59.7% of the total, while the leader alone accounts for 57. That leaves a long tail of companies with just one or a handful of filings each, which is a common shape in equipment-heavy mining technology fields. Anyone assessing competitive position in this space should treat the top five as the group setting the boundaries of core mill-hardware claims, and the tail as where niche or regional innovation happens.
Filings rose from 5 in 2017 to a peak of 50 in 2019, then declined to 21 by 2021 and to 3 by 2024, an 86% drop over that three-year span. That looks like a clear slowdown, but publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 figures in the dataset are still incomplete and should not be read as confirmation of a continuing decline. The safest complete-year comparison right now is the 2021-to-2024 window, which is the one the -86% figure reflects.
The B02C subclass, covering crushing, grinding and pulverising, appears in 84.0% of the 206 records in scope, far ahead of any other classification. Wet separation (B03B), flotation (B03D) and sieving and sorting (B07B) each appear in roughly 8-10% of records, meaning most patent activity is about the mill itself — liners, grates, media, ball charge control — rather than how it integrates with downstream separation or flotation stages. That imbalance is useful for spotting where circuit-level integration claims remain comparatively open.
The most-cited record in the dataset is US3078050A, an early autogenous grinding process and mill system patent, with 40 citations, followed by a real-time manufacturing optimisation filing (WO2021019551A1) with 34 and a grinding plant patent (US3942727A) with 27. Because citation counts accumulate over time, older filings naturally lead this list even though newer records on grate wear detection and monitoring are drawing increasing attention. Citation count is best read as a marker of historical influence rather than a measure of which patents matter most today.
The clearest gaps sit outside the dominant B02C mechanical claim space: areas like discharge grate wear prediction, liner lifter profile optimisation for variable ore hardness, and mill filling control tied to downstream flotation feed all show thinner filing density than core hardware claims in this dataset. Co-filing is also rare, with only two co-assignee pairings recorded, which suggests joint development claims covering sensor-plus-mill integration are largely unclaimed territory. A first claim in these areas would likely need to combine an existing mechanical mill design with a specific sensing or control method to avoid the dense prior art around the mill hardware itself.
Research Semi Autogenous Grinding Mills in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole semi autogenous grinding mills 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.