Steam Cracking Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 64.3% concentration. The top 5 assignees hold 369 of 574 records in scope — filing here means competing directly with entrenched claim portfolios, not filling gaps.
- Filing has flattened since 2020. The field peaked at 68 records in 2020 and sits at 66 by 2022's midpoint, with no clear renewed growth — though the most recent year is always undercounted due to publication lag.
- Coke-formation and transfer-line claims dominate citations. The five most-cited records all address vapor condensation, coke precursors or coke inhibition during cracking — the technical core everyone still cites.
What the steam cracking patent record actually covers
Steam cracking of naphtha and ethane sits at the center of olefins production, and the patent record in scope — 574 records published between 2015 and mid-2026 — reflects a mature, heavily claimed process rather than an emerging one. The search spans core cracking apparatus (C10G9), the acyclic hydrocarbon products themselves (C07C4, C07C11), and the surrounding equipment and separation art that keeps a furnace running: transfer-line exchangers, coke inhibition, run-length extension and, more recently, furnace electrification.
The technology composition shows why this is a process-engineering field as much as a chemistry one: <strong>C10G</strong> (hydrocarbon oils and refining) touches 92.0% of records, while heat-exchanger, steam-generation and separation classes each account for single-digit-to-low-double-digit shares — evidence that most invention activity clusters around furnace and downstream equipment rather than novel feedstock chemistry.
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
The chart below tracks published records by filing year against the IPC classes those records carry. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, class shares sum to more than 100% of the 574 records in scope.
A field that peaked in 2020 and has not regrown
Filings ran from 39 in 2017 to a peak of 68 in 2020, then held near that level through the 2022 midpoint at 66 before recent years show a decline — expected in part because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, but consistent with a plateaued rather than expanding claim landscape.
Equipment and separation classes outweigh core chemistry
C10G covers 92.0% of the 574 records and C07C 30.5%, but the next tier — B01J catalysis at 11.5%, B01D separation at 10.3%, and the steam/heat-exchange classes F22B, F01K and F28F each in the mid-single digits — shows that furnace hardware, catalytic conditioning and thermal recovery draw substantial claim activity around the core cracking reaction.
Shares are the percentage of the 574 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Steam Cracking of Naphtha and Ethane with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about steam cracking of naphtha and ethane and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art and a representative claim family
US5972206A — Flexible steam cracking process and corresponding steam cracking facility
The filing describes a flexible steam cracking process that injects particles sized between 0.02 mm and 4 mm into indirect transfer line exchangers at controlled circulation rates, limiting the temperature rise at the exchanger outlet to under 100°C per month. The mechanism targets coke buildup directly in the transfer-line exchanger rather than upstream in the cracking coil, extending run length before a shutdown is needed for decoking.Granted 1999-10-26, originally filed via PCT from Institut Français du Petrole — it predates most of the corpus and anchors the transfer-line exchanger approach to coke control.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20030070963A1 | Process and apparatus for cracking hydrocarbons | 277 |
| 2 | US5190634A | Inhibition of coke formation during vaporization of heavy hydrocarbons | 211 |
| 3 | US7235705B2 | Process for reducing vapor condensation in flash/separation apparatus overhead during steam cracking of hydro… | 137 |
| 4 | US7297833B2 | Steam cracking of light hydrocarbon feedstocks containing non-volatile components and/or coke precursors | 134 |
| 5 | US7312371B2 | Steam cracking of hydrocarbon feedstocks containing non-volatile components and/or coke precursors | 129 |
| 6 | US7244871B2 | Process and apparatus for removing coke formed during steam cracking of hydrocarbon feedstocks containing res… | 128 |
| 7 | US7820035B2 | Process for steam cracking heavy hydrocarbon feedstocks | 119 |
| 8 | US20050209495A1 | Process for steam cracking heavy hydrocarbon feedstocks | 113 |
| 9 | US4457364A | Close-coupled transfer line heat exchanger unit | 95 |
| 10 | US4499055A | Furnace having bent/single-pass tubes | 95 |
Citation counts favor older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations within this corpus — read them as a signal of technical influence on later filings, 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 say about where this field stands
Three signals define the current state of steam cracking IP: heavy concentration among a small set of assignees, a plateau in new filings, and a citation record still anchored to coke-control and heat-recovery inventions from earlier in the period.
The field is not open ground
With 369 of 574 records concentrated among five assignees, and 79.1% (454 records) held by the top ten, a new entrant is filing directly against dense, overlapping claim coverage rather than into empty space.
Growth has stalled since the 2020 peak
From 39 records in 2017 to a peak of 68 in 2020 and 66 at the 2022 midpoint, the trend shows no renewed acceleration — a pattern consistent with a process technology that has reached claim saturation on its core mechanisms.
Coke and vapor-condensation art still sets the baseline
The five most-cited records all address coke formation, coke precursors or vapor condensation during cracking — evidence that the technical problems those patents solved remain the reference point for later filings in the space.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to steam cracking of naphtha and ethane, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claims, and where filing has slowed
The ranking covers 77 companies across all 574 records in scope — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, but the complete set the data returns. Momentum among the largest holders has cooled sharply in the most recent year, which is where a challenger's opportunity typically opens up.
One assignee holds nearly a third of the top 5's combined total
The leading assignee's 174 records sit well ahead of fifth place at 28, meaning the concentration at the very top is driven by one dominant portfolio rather than an even spread among the leading five.
Recent-year filing has gone quiet among established leaders
Several of the most active historical assignees show zero filings in the latest year, with year-over-year declines of -100% for some — a pause that may reflect publication lag as much as a genuine slowdown in R&D.
Co-assignee filing is concentrated in a small number of pairs
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the corpus, with the strongest pair co-filing 17 records — a sign that joint development in this field is occasional and typically tied to a specific licensing or engineering partnership rather than a broad industry norm.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Lummus Technology Inc | 1 | — |
| ExxonMobil Chemical Patents Inc | 0 | — |
| Linde AG | 0 | -100% |
| SABIC Global Technologies BV | 0 | -100% |
| Nova Chemicals (International) SA | 0 | — |
| IFP Energies Nouvelles | 0 | — |
| Eastman Chemical Company | 0 | — |
| Saudi Aramco Technologies Company | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific follow-up work depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy, or spotting an entry point.
Map claims against the top holder's portfolio
With one assignee holding 174 of 574 records, a freedom-to-operate review should start by mapping that portfolio's independent claims against any planned furnace or transfer-line design before broader searching.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaTrack the under-claimed branches
Furnace electrification and transfer-line fouling mitigation carry thinner claim density than core cracking classes — worth a focused prior-art pull before committing engineering resources to a specific design.
Run a white-space search in EurekaWatch for renewed filing activity
Several leading assignees show zero filings in the latest year; given the 18-month publication lag, confirm whether this reflects a genuine pause or filings still working through the pipeline.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on steam cracking IP
The ranked leaders in this dataset span 77 companies across 574 records, with a single assignee holding 174 records — well ahead of the fifth-ranked holder at 28. The top 5 assignees combined account for 64.3% of all 574 records in scope, and the top 10 account for 79.1%. This level of concentration means most of the claim space in core cracking apparatus and coke-control methods is already occupied by a small number of large chemical and engineering firms rather than spread across many smaller players.
Filing rose from 39 records in 2017 to a peak of 68 in 2020, then held roughly flat with 66 records by the 2022 midpoint before appearing to decline in the most recent years. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years in any dataset will always look artificially low, so the apparent recent drop should not be read as a definite trend yet. Taken together, the pattern through 2020-2022 suggests the technology has plateaued rather than being in an active growth phase.
Based on IPC composition, classes like F28F (heat-exchanger details, 4.2% of records), F01K (steam and thermal power plants, 5.1%) and C01B (non-metallic elements and inorganic compounds, 3.7%) carry far fewer records than the dominant C10G and C07C classes. Practically, this points to furnace electrification, transfer-line exchanger fouling mitigation, and catalytic coil treatments as areas where claim density is thinner relative to the core cracking and hydrocarbon-product classes. Thinner density does not guarantee an easy filing, but it does mean less prior art to design around in a preliminary search.
US5972206A, assigned to Institut Français du Petrole, claims a flexible steam cracking process that injects sized particles (0.02-4 mm) into indirect transfer line exchangers at controlled circulation rates to limit outlet temperature rise to under 100°C per month, targeting coke buildup specifically in the transfer-line exchanger rather than the cracking coil. Anyone designing a transfer-line exchanger with active particle-based fouling control should review this filing's specific claim limitations — particle size range and circulation rate — since a design outside those numeric bounds, or one controlling coke elsewhere in the process, would likely sit outside its claims. It is a granted patent from 1999, so its term status should be checked independently before relying on any analysis here.
The most-cited record in this corpus is US20030070963A1 at 277 citations, followed by US5190634A at 211 and three records addressing vapor condensation and coke precursors during steam cracking in the 130-range. High citation counts in a searched corpus tend to favor older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate references, so these figures signal historical technical influence on the coke-formation and vapor-handling problem set rather than current commercial importance. New filers should still review them closely, since later patents in the space frequently build on or design around these specific claims.
Research Steam Cracking of Naphtha and Ethane in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole steam cracking of naphtha and ethane 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.