Sinter and Pellet Quality Testing Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The top 5 assignees account for 126 of 191 records in scope (66.0%), and the top 10 reach 88.0% — a short list of filers effectively sets the terms in this field.
- Filing has cooled from its 2020 peak. Output peaked at 40 records in 2020 and fell from 24 in 2021 to 11 in 2024, a -54% move over that span, though 2025-2026 figures are still filling in due to publication lag.
- Metal extraction dominates the IPC mix. C22B (metal extraction & refining) touches 50.8% of the 191 records, more than three times the next largest class, C04B (ceramics, cement & refractories) at 14.1%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (24 records) with 2024 (11) — 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 191 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Sinter and pellet quality testing sits at the intersection of ironmaking metallurgy and process control: methods for assessing tumbler index, cold crushing strength, reducibility and reduction degradation, alongside the sample preparation, porosity measurement and mineralogical characterisation that feed those tests. The 191 records in scope span physical test methods, refractory and binder compositions used in agglomeration, and the control systems and quality-prediction models that increasingly sit alongside them.
Filings cluster around integrated steelmakers and their captive R&D arms, with a visible academic-industrial pairing pattern rather than a broad field of independent inventors. The IPC spread shows the core is still classical metallurgy (C22B, C21B, F27B/F27D furnace hardware) with a growing digital layer (G05B control systems, G06F data processing) attached to the same records.
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 composition
Two views of the same 191 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the records fall into.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings rose to a peak of 40 records in 2020, then declined — 24 in 2021 down to 11 in 2024, a -54% move over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 counts (3 in 2026 so far) are undercounts: publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent years will fill in as more records publish.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
C22B (metal extraction & refining) covers 50.8% of the 191 records, well ahead of C04B (ceramics, cement & refractories) at 14.1% and G05B (control & regulating systems) at 12.0%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares are each measured against the full 191-record total and add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 191 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Sinter and Pellet Quality Testing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about sinter and pellet quality testing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
US12516397B2 — Method and system for optimization of agglomeration of ores
Agglomeration process in agglomeration plants is quite sensitive to changes in input feed material characteristics. End-to-end optimization of the agglomerate process by combining all the units is difficult due to unique complexities and challenges associated with combining the individual process outputs. A method and system for optimizing the operation of an agglomeration plant has been provided. The system performs real time optimization on integrated wet agglomeration and thermal agglomeration process which subsequently increases the plant productivity and agglomerate quality and minimizes the operating cost and emissions from the plant.Filed by Tata Consultancy Services, granted 2026-01-06 — part of a cluster of related filings from the same assignee on agglomeration optimization.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20220275475A1 | Method and system for optimization of agglomeration of ores | 40 |
| 2 | WO2021033207A2 | System and method for just in time characterization of raw materials | 11 |
| 3 | WO2015018813A1 | Castable refractory compositions and their use in the formation and repairing of monolithic refractory linings | 11 |
| 4 | WO2018099558A1 | Metallic ore pellets | 10 |
| 5 | WO2021001859A2 | Method and system for optimization of agglomeration of ores | 7 |
| 6 | US20200190623A1 | Metallic Ore Pellets | 7 |
| 7 | US20230195100A1 | System and method for development and deployment of self-organizing cyber-physical systems for manufacturing … | 6 |
| 8 | US20230130462A1 | Method and system for ironmaking plant optimization | 5 |
| 9 | WO2021234732A1 | System and method for development and deployment of self-organizing cyber-physical systems for manufacturing … | 3 |
| 10 | US20220284373A1 | System and method for just in time characterization of raw materials | 3 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and favour older records; a low count on a recent filing does not mean it is unimportant.
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 patterns worth acting on before drafting new claims in this space.
A small group of filers sets the claim boundaries
With the top 5 assignees holding 126 of 191 records (66.0%) and the top 10 reaching 88.0%, most of the productive claim space around tumbler index, cold crushing strength and reducibility testing is already occupied by a handful of integrated steelmakers and their research partners. New entrants should expect dense prior art on the core test-method claims and look for adjacent, less-crowded angles instead.
Activity has cooled from its 2020 peak, but the picture is incomplete
Filings fell from 24 in 2021 to 11 in 2024. That decline is real for the years it covers, but 2025 and 2026 are still filling in given the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication — treat the most recent two years as provisional, not as evidence of a continued slide.
Metal extraction claims dominate, but a digital layer is emerging
Half of all records touch C22B (metal extraction & refining), and C21B (blast furnace iron production) and F27B/F27D (furnace hardware) round out the classical metallurgy core. G05B and G06F together show that quality-prediction and control-system claims are increasingly being filed alongside — not instead of — the physical test methods.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to sinter and pellet quality testing, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Tata Steel Ltd | INDIAN INST OF TECH INDIAN SCHOOL OF MINES | 4 |
| Tata Steel Ltd | Council of Scientific & Industrial Research | 2 |
Only two co-assignee pairings appear in this dataset, the strongest linking Tata Steel with an academic partner on four records — evidence of narrow, deliberate collaboration rather than a broad ecosystem of joint filing.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders are concentrated, but recent-year momentum has shifted: most of the historically large filers show no activity in the latest year, while at least one smaller filer is still active.
One filer holds a clear lead
The top-ranked assignee holds 47 records, well ahead of the fifth-place filer at 10 and the tenth-place filer at 6 — a steep drop-off that marks this as a field with one dominant player rather than several evenly matched ones.
Historic leaders have gone quiet in the most recent year
Several of the largest historical filers, including the top-ranked assignee, show zero records in the latest year, while a smaller player (Binding Solutions) logged 3 — the only meaningful recent-year activity in the ranking. This may reflect publication lag as much as an actual slowdown.
A long tail beyond the top 10
Beyond the top 10, who together hold 88.0% of the 191 records, the remaining 13 ranked assignees hold the balance individually in single digits — a classic long tail where entry is possible but the volume sits elsewhere.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Binding Solutions Ltd | 3 | — |
| Tata Consultancy Services Ltd | 0 | — |
| Tata Steel Ltd | 0 | — |
| JSW Steel Ltd | 0 | — |
| Lhoist Recherche et Developpement SA | 0 | — |
| JFE Steel Corporation | 0 | — |
| Council of Scientific & Industrial Research | 0 | — |
| VITRITECH LTD | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The landscape points to specific next steps depending on whether you are clearing a filing, scouting white space, or tracking a competitor.
Check freedom to operate on core test methods
With 66.0% of records held by five assignees, any new filing on tumbler index or cold crushing strength testing should be checked against that concentrated set before drafting.
Run a claim clearance searchScout the digital-control overlap
The rise of G05B and G06F classes alongside classical metallurgy classes suggests quality-prediction models are a newer, less saturated angle worth deeper diligence.
Explore this sub-area in EurekaTrack the momentum shift
Several historic leaders show no recent-year filings while at least one smaller player remains active — worth monitoring for a change in competitive posture.
Set up assignee monitoringCommon questions about this landscape
The dataset ranks 23 assignees, and filings concentrate heavily at the top: the leading assignee holds 47 of 191 records, and the top 5 combined account for 66.0% of all records in scope. Rather than list individual names here, treat the top 5 and top 10 concentration figures (66.0% and 88.0% respectively) as the signal that this field is led by a small number of integrated steelmakers and their research partners rather than a broad field of independent filers. Anyone entering this space should expect to encounter prior art from that concentrated group first.
Filing peaked at 40 records in 2020 and has declined since, falling from 24 records in 2021 to 11 in 2024, a -54% change over that span. However, publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures (3 records so far in 2026) are still incomplete and should not be read as continued decline. The most reliable read is that activity cooled after 2020, with the true 2025-2026 trajectory not yet visible in published data.
The dominant class is C22B (metal extraction & refining), appearing in 50.8% of the 191 records, reflecting the core focus on ironmaking-related agglomerate quality. C04B (ceramics, cement & refractories, 14.1%) and G05B (control & regulating systems, 12.0%) follow, with C21B (blast furnace iron production, 9.4%) and B01J (chemical/physical processes, 8.4%) also well represented. Because records often carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages are each measured against the same 191-record total and naturally sum to more than 100%.
US12516397B2, assigned to Tata Consultancy Services and granted 2026-01-06, covers a method and system for real-time optimization of integrated wet and thermal agglomeration processes to improve plant productivity, agglomerate quality, and reduce operating cost and emissions. It is a systems/software-layer claim over the agglomeration process rather than a claim on the underlying physical test methods like tumbler index or cold crushing strength. Anyone building a real-time optimization or control-loop product over agglomeration plants should review its specific claim scope, but it does not obviously block work on the physical testing methods themselves.
The IPC composition shows classical metallurgy classes (C22B, C21B, F27B/F27D) are heavily filed, while the newer digital layer (G05B, G06F) tied to quality-prediction models appears in a smaller but growing share of records. Sub-areas such as porosity measurement automation, low-temperature disintegration index modelling, and mineralogy-linked quality prediction show comparatively thin coverage relative to the core test methods. These adjacent branches are worth deeper diligence for anyone looking to file without walking directly into the dense prior art held by the top assignees.
Research Sinter and Pellet Quality Testing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole sinter and pellet quality testing 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.