Steam Trap Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing activity peaked in 2020 at 15 records and has since flattened toward the 2022 midpoint of 3, a pattern that points to a mature, already-claimed core rather than an expanding one.
- F16T steam traps account for 168 of 212 records while adjacent subclasses like F16L pipe fittings and F01K thermal power plants sit in single digits — a sign of where claim density thins out.
- United States leads receiving offices with 41 filings ahead of China at 32 and the United Kingdom at 29, with WIPO PCT filings at 19 showing only moderate cross-border strategy.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 212 patent families filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine steam trap, steam system or condensate recovery claims with technical elements such as trap failure detection, flash steam recovery, waterhammer mitigation or system survey methods. The search deliberately pairs a core steam-hardware term with a functional failure or efficiency concept, so the corpus skews toward monitoring and diagnostic claims layered on top of established mechanical trap designs rather than pure valve mechanics.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend line understate real filing activity — treat the most recent one or two years as a floor, not a ceiling.
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 212-family dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how those filings distribute across the IPC subclasses that make up the steam-system claim space.
A peak in 2020, then a flat line
Filings rose to 15 in 2020, the high point of the window, then eased back toward the 2022 midpoint of 3 — consistent with a technology area where the core mechanical claims were staked out early and later activity is incremental rather than expansionary.
F16T dominates, everything else is a minor branch
F16T (steam traps) accounts for 168 of the 212 records, nearly eight times its nearest neighbor F22D (boiler feed-water control) at 40. Subclasses like B01D, F28B, F16L and F01K each sit at 11 or fewer, marking them as the thin edges of the landscape rather than contested ground.
Shares are the percentage of the 212 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Steam Systems and Trap Technology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about steam systems and trap technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe documents shaping this space
US4258668A — Closed pressurized feed water system supplying flash steam to a lower pressure process
A closed pressurized feed water system supplying flash steam to a lower pressure process and with no steam loss in the closed system. The flash steam delivered to the lower pressure process is sufficient to reduce the pressure in the feed water system so that a steam trap in the closed system will operate and permit the hot condensate to be returned to the boiler. New make-up water may be added to compensate for any steam loss; in the high-pressure closed system about 96.68% of the condensate is returned to the boiler and only about 3.32% is needed for new make-up water.Filed by Martin Bekedam, granted 1981 — one of the earliest documents in this landscape and a foundational reference for flash-steam recovery claims.
View full filing| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6279593B1 | Electric steam trap system and method of draining condensate | 83 |
| 2 | US6338283B1 | Self-contained electronic system for monitoring purgers, valves and installations in real time | 72 |
| 3 | US20020124666A1 | Self-sufficient electronic system for instant monitoring of steam traps, valves and installations | 51 |
| 4 | US4764024A | Steam trap monitor | 34 |
| 5 | US6675665B2 | Self-sufficient electronic system for instant monitoring of steam traps, valves and installations | 33 |
| 6 | US6571180B1 | Self-contained steam trap monitor | 33 |
| 7 | JP2000356305A | Condensate recovery device | 27 |
| 8 | US4945343A | System and method for detection of malfunctioning steam traps | 24 |
| 9 | US3572588A | Condensate and heat recovery system | 19 |
| 10 | US8935126B2 | Steam trap monitoring | 16 |
Citation counts favor older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate them — read them as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
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 decisions
Reading the trend and the citation table together points to a technology that consolidated early around a small set of monitoring and recovery concepts, then stopped attracting new entrants.
Growth already crested
The 2020 peak followed by a return to single digits by 2022 suggests the wave of interest in electronic steam trap monitoring — the theme behind the most-cited records — has already played out for most filers.
One subclass carries the landscape
F16T steam traps hold nearly 80% of all records in this corpus. New filers competing directly in trap mechanics face a dense prior-art field; the more open ground sits in the smaller adjacent subclasses.
No single office dominates filing strategy
With the US, China and the UK all in a similar band and PCT filings at only 19, most applicants appear to be filing nationally rather than building broad multi-jurisdiction portfolios.
Early electronic monitoring patents still anchor the field
The most-cited documents in this corpus are electronic steam trap monitoring systems from the late 1980s through early 2000s, indicating that later filings largely build on, rather than replace, that monitoring architecture.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to steam systems and trap technology, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and how actively
Assignee momentum in this dataset is muted: the named organizations with the strongest co-filing patterns show no activity in the latest year, reinforcing the picture of a landscape that has cooled rather than one still being actively contested.
Collaboration is limited and concentrated
Only nine co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, with the strongest pairings each appearing two to three times — a modest level of joint filing that points to mostly independent, single-assignee prosecution rather than joint ventures.
Named leaders have gone quiet recently
Every assignee with visible momentum data — including entities with prior multi-filing history — shows zero filings in the most recent year, though publication lag means some of this is reporting delay rather than a genuine stop.
Filing is spread, not concentrated in one region
The top receiving offices span North America, Europe and China without a single dominant jurisdiction, suggesting steam trap and condensate technology is being protected as a global installed-base concern rather than a regional one.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Spirax Sarco Limited | 0 | -100% |
| Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. | 0 | — |
| TLV Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Rosemount Inc. (USA) | 0 | — |
| GARDNER ENERGY MANAGEMENT | 0 | — |
| Keystone International Inc. | 0 | — |
| ARMSTRONG MACHINE WORKS | 0 | — |
| Straman Valve Company | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing and citation data point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is defensive clearance or new claim drafting.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on adjacent subclasses
Before drafting new claims in flash steam recovery or waterhammer detection, check the thinner IPC subclasses — F16L, F01K, B01D — against the full family list rather than assuming low volume means open space.
Explore in EurekaTrace the monitoring-patent lineage
The most-cited records share a common architecture of electronic, real-time trap monitoring; understanding how later filings cite and modify that architecture clarifies which claim elements are genuinely still contested.
Explore in EurekaCommon questions about steam trap patents
This dataset identifies 212 patent families filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine steam trap or condensate recovery claims with technical elements like trap failure detection, flash steam recovery or waterhammer mitigation. That figure covers a specific IPC-bounded search rather than every steam-related patent globally, so broader searches on plain steam trap hardware would return a larger number. Families are the more reliable unit here because they collapse continuation filings and multi-jurisdiction duplicates of the same invention into one count.
The dataset's co-assignee and momentum data point to a small group of recurring filers, but none show any filings in the most recent tracked year, which suggests the field has moved past its most active filing period for these particular organizations. Because publication lags real filing activity by roughly 18 months, some of that apparent inactivity is a reporting artifact rather than a genuine stop. Anyone assessing current competitive position should treat the last one to two years of any single assignee's record as incomplete.
Filing activity in this dataset is flat to declining rather than growing: it peaked at 15 records in 2020 and had fallen back to a midpoint of 3 by 2022. This pattern is typical of a technology area where the core mechanical and monitoring concepts were established early, and subsequent activity is incremental refinement rather than a new wave of entrants. It does not mean the market for steam trap products is shrinking, only that the patent claim space in this specific search scope has stabilized.
The smaller IPC subclasses in this dataset — F16L pipe fittings, F01K thermal power plants, B01D separation processes and F28B steam condensers — each account for 11 or fewer of the 212 records, compared with 168 in the core F16T steam trap subclass. That imbalance suggests under-claimed ground in areas like multi-trap network failure correlation, condenser-side survey automation and feed-water valve diagnostics, though any filing there should still be checked against the specific family list rather than assumed open on subclass volume alone.
US4258668A, granted in 1981 to Martin Bekedam, describes a closed pressurized feed-water system that delivers flash steam to a lower-pressure process while returning about 96.68% of condensate to the boiler and needing only about 3.32% make-up water. It is one of the earliest documents in this landscape and functions as a foundational reference for flash-steam recovery claims that later filings build on. Anyone drafting claims around flash steam re-use or closed-loop condensate return should review this filing's specific claim language before assuming a design is novel.
Research Steam Systems and Trap Technology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole steam systems and trap technology 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.