Soil Vapor Extraction Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
Filing growth compares 2021 (28 records) with 2024 (2) — 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 515 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape draws on 515 published patent records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine soil vapor extraction terminology with IPC classes B09C1 (soil and contaminated land reclamation) and C02F (water and wastewater treatment). The scope captures both standalone soil vapor extraction equipment and hybrid systems that pair it with biological treatment, drilling, or separation steps.
Filing activity is concentrated among a small group of established environmental-engineering and oilfield-services filers, with a long tail of single-filing entrants behind them. Patent families, rather than raw document counts, are used throughout so that multi-jurisdiction and continuation filings from the same underlying invention are not double-counted.
Filing trends and technology composition
The dataset covers 515 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026, spanning eight IPC subclasses and six major receiving offices. The figures below use the record and family counts exactly as returned by the search — no recomputed shares.
Filing activity peaked in 2021, then contracted sharply
Filings rose to a peak of 28 in 2021 before falling to 2 by 2024, a -93% swing over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so the true trajectory of the most recent two years is not yet visible in this data.
B09C dominates, but records rarely sit in one class alone
88.2% of the 515 records carry a B09C soil-reclamation classification, and 26.8% also carry C02F water treatment — the two core classes most soil vapor extraction filings straddle. Separation processes (B01D, 19.8%) and drilling (E21B, 17.7%) show up often enough to be structural to the field, while polymer compositions (C08L, 3.5%) and mixing equipment (B01F, 4.5%) are comparatively thin.
Shares are the percentage of the 515 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Soil & Groundwater Remediation: Soil Vapor Extraction Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about soil & groundwater remediation: soil vapor extraction patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited patents
System and Method for Combined Microorganism Degradation and Air Sparging-Soil Vapor Extraction of Oil-containing Sludge
A system and method for combined microorganism degradation and air sparging-soil vapor extraction (AS-SVE) of oil-containing sludge, built around a microorganism-adding unit and an AS-SVE unit, a metering-feeding layer with valve, pressure gauge and flowmeter, a mixing layer with pipeline connectors and a stirrer, a material-discharging layer, and a crawler-type conveyor.Filed by Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, published 2019-08-15 as US20190248687A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20030201098A1 | In situ recovery from a hydrocarbon containing formation using one or more simulations | 310 |
| 2 | US20040020642A1 | In situ recovery from a hydrocarbon containing formation using conductor-in-conduit heat sources with an elec… | 305 |
| 3 | US20030196789A1 | In situ thermal processing of a hydrocarbon containing formation and upgrading of produced fluids prior to fu… | 297 |
| 4 | US5360067A | Vapor-extraction system for removing hydrocarbons from soil | 250 |
| 5 | US20040040715A1 | In situ production of a blending agent from a hydrocarbon containing formation | 237 |
| 6 | US5769569A | In-situ thermal desorption of heavy hydrocarbons in vadose zone | 201 |
| 7 | US20030173072A1 | Forming openings in a hydrocarbon containing formation using magnetic tracking | 184 |
| 8 | US20030183390A1 | Methods and systems for heating a hydrocarbon containing formation in situ with an opening contacting the ear… | 177 |
| 9 | US6854929B2 | Isolation of soil with a low temperature barrier prior to conductive thermal treatment of the soil | 175 |
| 10 | US20030192691A1 | In situ recovery from a hydrocarbon containing formation using barriers | 172 |
Ranked by citation count within the searched corpus; older in-situ thermal recovery filings dominate the top of this list, which reflects citation accumulation over time rather than present-day commercial weight.
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 filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the records are grouped by assignee, class and citation weight: concentration at the top, a thinning trend that needs a careful read, and claim scope that spans remediation and water treatment simultaneously.
A small group holds a disproportionate share
The leading assignee alone accounts for 39 records, and the top five together hold 114 records, 22.1% of the full 515-record set. The top ten extend that to 172 records, 33.4% of the total, after which the ranking spreads thin across the remaining ranked companies.
A sharp drop that needs a careful read
Filings fell from a peak of 28 in 2021 to 2 in 2024. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are not yet complete and should not be read as confirming a continued decline.
Claims straddle reclamation and water treatment
Most records carry a B09C soil-reclamation classification, and over a quarter also carry C02F water-treatment classification. Filers rarely claim vapor extraction as a standalone soil process; it is usually tied to a downstream treatment or separation step.
The oldest filings still define the field's vocabulary
The five most-cited records in this dataset, led by US20030201098A1 at 310 citations, are all in-situ thermal recovery filings rather than recent hybrid systems. That reflects how citation counts favour older prior art, not how commercially active a mechanism is today.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to soil & groundwater remediation: soil vapor extraction patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Shell Internationale Research Maatschappij B.V. | Shell Canada Ltd. | 7 |
| Shell Oil Co. | Shell Canada Ltd. | 6 |
| TerraTherm Inc. | BRADY PATRICK RICHARD | 3 |
| Shell Internationale Research Maatschappij B.V. | Shell Oil Co. | 2 |
| Shell Oil Co. | VINEGAR HAROLD J | 2 |
| Shell Oil Co. | STEGEMEIER GEORGE LEO | 2 |
| Shell Canada Ltd. | VINEGAR HAROLD J | 2 |
| Shell Canada Ltd. | STEGEMEIER GEORGE LEO | 2 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the whole dataset, and the strongest of them link closely related corporate entities rather than independent partners — most filers in this field are filing alone.
Where to take this analysis next
The figures above frame the field at a high level. Decisions about where to file, license, or challenge require reading the underlying claims directly.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leaders
The top 5 assignees hold 22.1% of all 515 records, and the top 10 hold 33.4% — before filing in the core B09C/C02F overlap, it is worth checking whether a specific mechanical combination has already been claimed by one of these leading filers.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaRevisit the trend once 2025-2026 publications land
The apparent 93% drop from 2021 to 2024 is real in what has published so far, but 18 months of publication lag means the 2025-2026 cohort is still incomplete. Set a reminder to re-pull this data in a year.
Track filing trends in EurekaExplore the thinner IPC branches
C08L polymer compositions (3.5% of records) and B01F mixing equipment (4.5%) show far less claim density than the core soil-reclamation classes, and may offer more room to file without crowding established prior art.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about the soil vapor extraction patent landscape
This dataset covers 515 published records filed globally between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from a search combining soil vapor extraction terminology with IPC classes B09C1 (soil and contaminated land reclamation) and C02F (water and wastewater treatment). The true count is somewhat higher than the field shows for the most recent one to two years, because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. United States, China and EPO filings together account for the bulk of the receiving offices in scope.
Filing is concentrated at the top: the five most active assignees together hold 114 records, 22.1% of all 515 in scope, and the leading single assignee alone accounts for 39 records. The top ten combined reach 172 records, 33.4% of the total, after which the ranking spreads into a long tail of single- and low-filing entrants across the remaining ranked companies. That pattern is typical of a mature remediation niche where a handful of oilfield-services and environmental-engineering firms hold foundational architecture.
Filings peaked in 2021 at 28 and fell to 2 by 2024, a drop of 93% over that three-year span, which on its face reads as a sharp slowdown. However, 2025 and 2026 data are still incomplete due to the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, so it would be premature to call this a permanent decline rather than a temporary dip in what has published so far. Anyone tracking this space should revisit the 2023-2024 cohort once later publications catch up before drawing a firm conclusion.
Beyond the core B09C soil-reclamation classification, which covers 88.2% of the 515 records, the strongest overlaps are with C02F water and wastewater treatment (26.8%), B01D separation processes such as filtration (19.8%), and E21B earth and rock drilling for wells (17.7%). Solid waste disposal (B09B, 10.9%) and foundations/earth drilling (E02D, 5.2%) show up less often but recur enough to matter for equipment-level claims. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these percentages are each measured against the full 515-record total and are not meant to sum to 100%.
US5360067A, titled a vapor-extraction system for removing hydrocarbons from soil, is cited 250 times, making it one of the most heavily relied-upon prior art documents in this field. High citation counts inside a searched corpus tend to favour older, foundational filings rather than currently important ones, so this figure signals influence on the field's vocabulary and architecture rather than commercial relevance today. New filers should expect claims describing basic vapor-extraction well and blower configurations to run into this and related mid-1990s prior art.
Research Soil & Groundwater Remediation: Soil Vapor Extraction Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole soil & groundwater remediation: soil vapor extraction 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.