Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/soil-and-groundwater-remediation-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Soil & Groundwater RemediationSoil and groundwater remediation patents: who holds the claim space and where it is still open
- 45.5% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees hold 281 of the 618 records in scope — a field where a handful of filers set the terms for everyone else.
- Filings have cooled, not collapsed. Annual filings fell from 16 in 2021 to 12 in 2024, a 25% decline over that span, after peaking at 65 in 2017.
- Biology and treatment overlap heavily. C02F water treatment (30.4%) and C12N microorganisms (30.3%) sit almost level, with A61K medicinal preparations close behind at 29.4% of the 618 records.
618
Published Records
45%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-25%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (16 records) with 2024 (12) — 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 618 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset covers 618 published patent families filed between 2015 and 2026 that combine soil or groundwater remediation language with a technical control layer — field sensing, plant growth response, water application, biological trait engineering, contaminant concentration measurement, or membrane flux. That second requirement narrows the field to filings that pair a remediation claim with an instrumented or biologically engineered mechanism, rather than a bare chemical treatment method.
The record set spans engineered bioremediation, in-situ soil reclamation, fertiliser and biocide compositions with environmental claims, and monitoring or feedback-control methods for groundwater treatment. Filing offices lean heavily toward the United States, with meaningful activity at the EPO, WIPO and in Australia, Canada and India — a spread consistent with a technology that is filed domestically first and extended selectively.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Soil & Groundwater Remediation Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The Numbers
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 618-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how those records split across the IPC subclasses that define the field's technical core.
Filing trend: a 2017 peak, then a gradual pull-back
Filings peaked at 65 in 2017 and have since settled lower, with 2021 at 16 falling to 12 by 2024 — a 25% decline over that three-year window. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures (down to 8) are still incomplete and should not be read as a further drop.
Technology composition: treatment and biology run neck and neck
C02F (water and wastewater treatment) and C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) each cover just over 30% of the 618 records, with A61K (medicinal preparations) close behind at 29.4%. B09C, the subclass most specific to soil and contaminated land reclamation, covers 27.0% — a reminder that much of this field is filed under adjacent categories rather than a dedicated soil-remediation class.
Shares are the percentage of the 618 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Soil & Groundwater Remediation Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Soil & Groundwater Remediation Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about soil & groundwater remediation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited prior art in this space
Representative Filing
Feedback control of groundwater remediation
CORNELL RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.
A differential dynamic programming method for computing optimal, time-varying pumping policies for groundwater remediation, using a feedback law generated by a constrained algorithm with penalty functions, tested under uncertainty in hydraulic conductivity and modelled with a two-dimensional Galerkin finite element scheme.Filed by Cornell Research Foundation, this 1995 filing sits early in the field's control-theory branch — feedback-driven pumping optimisation rather than a fixed remediation schedule.
Highest-citation records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6428814B1 | Bioadhesive nanoparticulate compositions having cationic surface stabilizers | 396 |
| 2 | US5560737A | Pneumatic fracturing and multicomponent injection enhancement of in situ bioremediation | 194 |
| 3 | US5032042A | Method and apparatus for eliminating non-naturally occurring subsurface, liquid toxic contaminants from soil | 143 |
| 4 | US8252182B1 | Subsurface upflow wetland system for nutrient and pathogen removal in wastewater treatment systems | 133 |
| 5 | US5525008A | Remediation apparatus and method for organic contamination in soil and groundwater | 116 |
| 6 | WO2016177682A1 | Altering microbial populations & modifying microbiota | 115 |
| 7 | US20160333348A1 | Altering microbial populations & modifying microbiota | 112 |
| 8 | US6491828B1 | Method and system to remotely monitor groundwater treatment | 107 |
| 9 | US5611642A | Remediation apparatus and method for organic contamination in soil and groundwater | 85 |
| 10 | US9701964B2 | Altering microbial populations and modifying microbiota | 83 |
Citation counts accumulate over time and favour older filings; treat them as a signal of influence on later work, not of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Soil & Groundwater Remediation Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Signals
What the data says about direction of travel
Three patterns emerge from the filing trend, the technology mix and the citation record: a field with an early technical foundation, a cooling but not disappearing filing rate, and a technology base split almost evenly between chemical treatment and biological engineering.
Concentration
45.5%
of 618 records held by top 5 assignees
A small group sets the terms
The five leading assignees account for 281 of the 618 records in scope, and the top ten extend that to 339 records, or 54.9%. New entrants are filing into a space where the largest claim positions are already held.
Based on the assignee ranking of 100 companies.
Momentum
-25%
filing change, 2021 to 2024
A pull-back from the 2017 peak, not a stall
Filings peaked at 65 in 2017 and had fallen to 12 by 2024, a 25% decline over the 2021-2024 window measured in the data. The 2025-2026 figures are still filling in given the typical 18-month publication lag, so this should be read as cooling rather than a verdict on the field's future.
Peak year: 2017 (65 records).
Technology mix
30.4% / 30.3%
C02F vs C12N share of 618 records
Chemical treatment and biology are near-equal branches
Water and wastewater treatment (C02F) and microorganism/genetic engineering (C12N) each cover just over 30% of records, with medicinal preparations (A61K) close behind at 29.4%. Filers rarely commit to one branch alone; the overlap suggests hybrid biological-chemical claims are common.
Shares exceed 100% combined because records carry multiple IPC classes.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to soil & groundwater remediation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Soil & Groundwater Remediation Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Who's Filing
The assignee landscape
The ranking covers 100 companies across the 618 records in scope. Filing activity concentrates sharply at the top, while recent-year momentum data shows several of the largest historical filers reporting no filings in the most recent tracked year — consistent with the broader cooling shown in the trend chart.
Leader
132
records from the top assignee
One filer well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 132 records, more than four times the fifth-placed filer's 22. That gap defines the shape of the ranking more than any other single figure.
Fifth place: 22 records. Tenth place: 10 records.
Long tail
10
records at 10th place
A steep drop-off past the leaders
By tenth place, record counts have fallen to 10 — a tenth of the leader's total. Below the ranked leaders, filing activity spreads across many single- and few-filing entrants rather than a second concentrated tier.
Ranking covers 100 companies, not a top-50 or top-100 cutoff by design.
Momentum
0
latest-year filings from several top assignees
Historical leaders have gone quiet recently
Several of the assignees with the largest historical filing counts show zero filings in the latest tracked year, including year-over-year declines as steep as -100%. This is consistent with the overall filing pull-back rather than any single company's exit.
Momentum measured against each assignee's most recent complete filing year.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| SNIPR Technologies | 0 | -100% |
| Remediation Products Inc | 0 | — |
| Cool Planet Energy Systems Inc | 0 | — |
| Flagship Pioneering Innovations V, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Carbon Technology Holdings LLC | 0 | — |
| Elan Pharma International Ltd | 0 | — |
| Solutions-IES, Inc. | 0 | — |
| ZENTOX CORP | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Soil & Groundwater Remediation Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific questions worth running deeper before committing R&D or freedom-to-operate budget.
Map claim overlap in the treatment-biology overlap zone
C02F and C12N both cover roughly 30% of records with heavy co-occurrence. A claim-by-claim comparison of the leading assignees' filings in this overlap would show whether hybrid biological-chemical remediation methods are as contested as the raw class counts suggest.
Explore this overlap in EurekaStress-test the under-claimed branches
Feedback-controlled pumping and membrane flux monitoring show thinner filing density than the core treatment classes. Before drafting a first claim there, run a targeted freedom-to-operate search against the leading assignees' full portfolios.
Run a freedom-to-operate scan in EurekaTrack the assignees that have gone quiet
Several top historical filers show zero filings in the latest tracked year. Whether that reflects a shift to trade secrecy, a pivot to a different technology, or genuine exit is worth confirming before assuming the claim space is open.
Monitor assignee activity in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Soil & Groundwater Remediation Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this field
The dataset's assignee ranking shows a single leader with 132 of the 618 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-placed filer at 22 records. The top five assignees combined hold 281 records, or 45.5% of the field, and the top ten hold 339 records, or 54.9%. Below that concentrated top tier, filing activity spreads across a long tail of entrants with far fewer records each, so a freedom-to-operate review should weight the leading assignees' portfolios most heavily.
Filings peaked at 65 in 2017 and have declined since, with the 2021-to-2024 window showing a 25% drop from 16 to 12 filings. Because patent publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, the lower counts shown for 2025 and 2026 are incomplete rather than evidence of a further collapse. The honest read is a field that has cooled from an early peak rather than one still accelerating, but 2025-2026 data is not yet settled enough to call a continued decline.
Water and wastewater treatment methods (IPC class C02F) and microorganism or genetic-engineering approaches (C12N) each appear in just over 30% of the 618 records, essentially tied for the largest technical footprint. Medicinal preparations (A61K) and biocide/agrochemical compositions (A01N) follow close behind, both above 27%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100%, reflecting how often remediation filings combine a chemical treatment claim with a biological or agrochemical mechanism.
The most-cited record in this dataset is US6428814B1, covering bioadhesive nanoparticulate compositions with cationic surface stabilizers, cited 396 times. Close behind is US5560737A on pneumatic fracturing and multicomponent injection enhancement of in-situ bioremediation, cited 194 times. High citation counts tend to favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate references, so treat these as markers of historical influence on the field's development rather than indicators of current commercial priority.
The technology composition data shows several branches with thinner overlap against the dominant treatment and biology classes, including feedback-controlled pumping optimisation, membrane flux monitoring for in-situ systems, and biological trait engineering aimed specifically at contaminant uptake rather than general bioremediation. These are starting points for a freedom-to-operate scope, not confirmed gaps — a proper clearance search against the leading assignees' full portfolios is still required before drafting a first claim in any of them.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Soil & Groundwater Remediation Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Soil & Groundwater Remediation Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole soil & groundwater remediation 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.