Solid-State Supercapacitor Electrode Patents: Leaders & Gaps 2026
- Filing is accelerating, not maturing. the midpoint year in the range shows zero filings before activity resumed, meaning the field's growth curve is recent and still climbing.
- H01G dominates the classification mix. 54 of 65 records sit in capacitor-specific H01G, with nanotechnology (B82Y) and inorganic compounds (C01B) as the next most common cross-filed classes.
- No assignee shows recent-year momentum. every top assignee identified in the ranking recorded zero filings in the latest year, consistent with a field of first-time and single-filing entrants rather than an entrenched incumbent racing to file.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent families describing solid-state and all-solid-state supercapacitor constructions paired with claims on flexible, carbon, or pseudocapacitive electrode materials. The search spans filings from 2015 through the mid-2026 data cut-off, capturing both the electrode chemistry (carbon forms, metal oxynitrides, graphene derivatives) and the device architecture (solid electrolyte interfaces, ultrathin cell formats) that these claims sit inside.
Sixty-five families is a small, specific corpus, which makes concentration and gaps easier to read than in a crowded field. Receiving-office data shows the United States and India carrying the largest share of filings, with China, WIPO and Europe each holding smaller but active positions.
Filing trend and technology composition
The two views below cut the same 65 families by year and by classification. Read them together: the filing curve shows when activity happened, the IPC breakdown shows what kind of claim was being written.
Filings by year
Filings opened at 4 in 2017, peaked at 8 in 2018, dropped to zero at the 2022 midpoint, then resumed — the most recent year (2026) is a partial count and will rise as later publications land, given the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication.
IPC subclass composition
H01G (capacitors) accounts for the large majority of records at 54 of 65. C01B (inorganic compounds, 10) and B82Y (nanotechnology, 9) are the next-largest secondary classes, with H01M (batteries, 8) marking overlap into battery-adjacent electrode work, and smaller counts in coatings (C09D), electrolytic production (C25B), conductors (H01B) and catalysis (B01J).
Shares are the percentage of the 65 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Solid-State Supercapacitor Electrode Material with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about solid-state supercapacitor electrode material and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
Positive-electrode sheet for capacitor, manufacturing method thereof, and ultrathin supercapacitor
A positive-electrode sheet for a capacitor includes a first active substance layer comprising a positive-electrode active material, a carbon electrode material, a positive-electrode conductive agent, and a positive-electrode binder. The manufacturing method mixes these components into a positive-electrode material, then processes and molds it into the active substance layer. The resulting ultrathin supercapacitor packages this sheet within a case.Filed by EVE ENERGY CO., LTD., published 2025-12-18 — one of the most recent entries in this corpus.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20070076349A1 | Electrochemical double-layer capacitor using organosilicon electrolytes | 130 |
| 2 | US20140322608A1 | Modified graphitic electrodes for electrochemical energy storage enhancement | 55 |
| 3 | US7466539B2 | Electrochemical double-layer capacitor using organosilicon electrolytes | 46 |
| 4 | US20180290891A1 | Reduced graphene oxide-metal oxynitride aerogel electrodes | 37 |
| 5 | EP2878709A1 | Preparation of two dimensional carbon materials by electrochemical exfoliation | 33 |
| 6 | US20200158678A1 | Nanostructured graphene-modified graphite pencil electrode system for simultaneous detection of analytes | 30 |
| 7 | US7612985B2 | Electrochemical double-layer capacitor using organosilicon electrolytes | 24 |
| 8 | CN105551827A | 结合丝网印刷的层层组装柔性全固态超级电容器的制备方法 | 21 |
| 9 | US20160141114A1 | Nanocomposite of multilayer fullerenes with transition metal oxide nanoparticles and a process for the prepar… | 20 |
| 10 | US10319537B2 | Modified graphitic electrodes for electrochemical energy storage enhancement | 19 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to be cited; treat them as markers of influence on the field's foundational claims, not as a ranking of current importance.
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 indicate
Three patterns stand out once filing volume, classification and citation data are read side by side.
Growth is real but discontinuous
The field opened with a small early cluster, peaked in 2018, then went quiet at the midpoint before filings resumed. That pattern reads less like a maturing technology and more like a research area that periodically attracts fresh entrants rather than sustaining continuous investment.
Claims are concentrated in capacitor-specific classes
The overwhelming majority of records sit in H01G, meaning claim drafting has stayed close to the capacitor device itself rather than dispersing into general materials-science classifications. The secondary presence in C01B and B82Y suggests electrode chemistry claims are the main route into adjacent classes.
No incumbent is currently active
Every assignee appearing in the top of the ranking shows zero filings in the most recent year captured. Combined with the small total family count, this points to a field still populated by academic and single-project filers rather than a company running a sustained filing programme.
Foundational art predates the search window
The most-cited record in this corpus describes organosilicon electrolytes for electrochemical double-layer capacitors and sits well ahead of the field on citation count, indicating it is treated as a reference point by later filers working on electrode and electrolyte pairing.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to solid-state supercapacitor electrode material, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the claim gates sit
Co-assignee pairs are sparse in this dataset — only 7 pairs across 65 families — which means most work here has been filed by single organisations rather than joint ventures or sponsored research consortia.
Collaboration is the exception
The strongest co-filing relationship in the corpus links a German research-promotion organisation with a chemicals manufacturer at three shared families; the next strongest pairs, involving a Wisconsin research foundation and individual named inventors, sit at two apiece. Most other assignees file alone.
Filing activity splits between two offices
The United States and India together account for the large majority of receiving-office activity, with China, WIPO, Europe and Canada trailing well behind. A filer targeting freedom-to-operate should treat US and Indian prosecution history as the primary reference set.
Academic and single-project filers predominate
Named top assignees include university research foundations, a national research council, and a materials company, none of which filed in the most recent year. This is consistent with grant-cycle-driven filing rather than a corporate roadmap with continuous output.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) | 0 | — |
| Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) | 0 | — |
| Maita Corporation | 0 | — |
| Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science | 0 | — |
| Rowan University | 0 | — |
| King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals | 0 | — |
| Purdue Research Foundation | 0 | — |
| BASF SE | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The dataset points to open questions rather than settled ones. These are reasonable next steps for a team deciding where to file or where to watch.
Track the lag-adjusted 2026 count
The partial 2026 figure will revise upward as later publications clear the roughly 18-month lag; re-check this trend in two to three quarters before drawing conclusions about a slowdown.
Explore filing trends in EurekaMap the under-claimed branches against your own roadmap
Solid electrolyte–carbon interface work and roll-to-roll flexible manufacturing show thin coverage in this corpus; a freedom-to-operate check specific to those branches is worth running before committing claim language.
Run a white space search in EurekaWatch for a lagged incumbent return
Every top assignee shows zero recent-year filings; because of publication lag this could reverse quickly. Set an alert on the named research foundations and councils rather than assuming the field has gone quiet.
Set assignee alerts in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The ranking in this dataset is led by a mix of university research foundations, a national research council, and materials-focused companies rather than a single dominant corporate filer. None of these top-ranked assignees recorded a filing in the most recent year captured, which suggests the field is driven by periodic research projects rather than a sustained corporate filing programme. Anyone assessing freedom-to-operate should check each of these assignees' full portfolios individually rather than assuming one company controls the space.
This landscape identifies 65 patent families published between 2015 and the mid-2026 data cut-off that combine solid-state or all-solid-state supercapacitor claims with flexible, carbon, or pseudocapacitive electrode material claims. That is a small, specific corpus rather than a crowded field, which is why individual assignees and classification gaps are easier to identify than in larger technology areas. The true 2026 count will rise once later filings publish, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
Filing activity has been discontinuous: it opened at 4 records in 2017, peaked at 8 in 2018, fell to zero at the 2022 midpoint, and has since resumed with 3 filings recorded by mid-2026. That pattern points to renewed rather than continuous growth, and the midpoint gap suggests the field periodically loses and regains filer interest. Because the most recent year is only partially published, current activity is likely understated in the raw count.
The large majority of records, 54 of 65, are classified under H01G, the capacitor-specific IPC subclass, meaning most claims are drafted around the capacitor device itself. Secondary classifications include C01B for inorganic compounds (10 records) and B82Y for nanotechnology applications (9 records), reflecting electrode chemistry claims that extend into materials science. Smaller counts appear in battery-adjacent H01M, coatings under C09D, electrolytic production under C25B, conductors under H01B, and catalysis under B01J, showing the technology touches several adjacent fields without concentrating heavily in any one of them.
Based on the classification and filing data, sub-areas such as solid electrolyte-to-carbon interface engineering, roll-to-roll flexible electrode manufacturing, and pseudocapacitive metal oxynitride aerogel formulations show thinner claim coverage relative to the core H01G capacitor-device claims. These branches appear as secondary or supporting classifications rather than as the focus of dedicated filing clusters. A team targeting these areas should run a dedicated freedom-to-operate search rather than relying on this landscape's headline classification counts alone.
The most-cited record in this corpus is a filing on organosilicon electrolytes for electrochemical double-layer capacitors, cited 130 times, followed by a modified graphitic electrode patent at 55 citations. Both of the top two most-cited records predate 2015, meaning they function as foundational reference points that later electrode-material filings build on or distinguish from. High citation counts in this kind of dataset reflect age and influence on the field rather than current commercial relevance, so they should not be read as a signal of which patents are most valuable today.
Research Solid-State Supercapacitor Electrode Material in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole solid-state supercapacitor electrode material 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.