Superconducting Magnet for Fusion Patents: Leaders & Filing Trends 2026
A patent landscape analysis of superconducting magnet for fusion technology covering 32 records from 2015-2026, mapping the leading assignees, filing trend, IPC composition and the most-cited prior art.
Filing growth = 2021 (1 records) → 2024 (5); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 32 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Superconducting magnets are the enabling component of magnetic-confinement fusion reactors: the central solenoid, poloidal-field and toroidal-field coils that shape and hold the plasma. This landscape draws on 32 published records filed or published between 2015 and 2026, filtered to claims and abstracts that explicitly tie superconducting magnet technology to fusion or nuclear reactor systems under IPC classes G21 and G21C. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent filing years understate real activity.
The dataset is small enough that individual assignees and even single records move the picture meaningfully — a useful reminder that concentration figures here describe a nascent, fast-moving field rather than a mature, saturated one.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 32 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A late-decade acceleration
Filings peaked so far at 10 in 2019, then activity rebuilt from 1 in 2021 to 5 in 2024 — a +400% increase over that three-year span. Because publication lags filing by around 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are not yet complete and should not be read as a slowdown.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
Reactor claims dominate; magnet-specific claims are the minority
G21B (fusion reactors) appears in 96.9% of the 32 records, confirming this corpus is squarely about fusion reactor systems. H10N (other electric solid-state devices) reaches 40.6% and H01F (magnets, inductors & transformers) only 25.0% — the magnet engineering itself, as opposed to the reactor system it sits inside, is comparatively under-claimed. Smaller shares in B64G, H05H, C21D and C22C mark adjacent applications and materials work.
Shares are the percentage of the 32 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Superconducting Magnet for Fusion Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about superconducting magnet for fusion patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art
Magnetic confinement fusion reactor
Describes a magnetic confinement fusion reactor built around a Dewar system, cold shield system, superconducting magnet system, vacuum chamber, divertor, blanket and remote maintenance systems. The superconducting magnet system is split into a central solenoid magnet for volt-seconds, a poloidal field magnet, and a toroidal field magnet, with the plasma confined by the combined toroidal and poloidal fields.Filed by Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences — 2024-08-29.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20110188623A1 | Rotating High Density Fusion Reactor for aneutronic and neutronic fusion | 41 |
| 2 | US20240290505A1 | Magnetic confinement fusion reactor | 29 |
| 3 | US20140219407A1 | Rotating High-Density Fusion Reactor For Aneutronic and Neutronic Fusion | 20 |
| 4 | WO2014204531A2 | Rotating high density fusion reactor for aneutronic and neutronic fusion | 11 |
| 5 | US20180114603A1 | Apparatus and Method for Controlling a Plasma Fusion Reactor | 10 |
| 6 | US20220005614A1 | Techniques For Cryogenic Radiation Enhancement Of Superconductors And Related Systems And Methods | 6 |
| 7 | JP1985190516A | Production of nonmagnetic steel sheet for constructing superconductive magnet for nuclear fission reactor | 6 |
| 8 | WO2020142119A2 | Techniques for cryogenic radiation enhancement of superconductors and related systems and methods | 4 |
| 9 | US10811159B2 | Fueling method for small, steady-state, aneutronic FRC fusion reactors | 4 |
| 10 | US20190221322A1 | Passive magnetic shielding of structures immersed in plasma using superconductors | 3 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations within this searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence rather than 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 numbers mean for strategy
Four readings of the same 32-record dataset, each pointed at a different decision a strategy or IP team needs to make.
A short list of assignees controls most of the field
With the top 5 combined accounting for 68.8% of all 32 records and the top 10 reaching 96.9%, superconducting-magnet-for-fusion filings sit almost entirely with a small set of national labs, universities and a handful of companies. A new entrant is filing directly against a small, identifiable group rather than into open ground.
Activity rebuilt sharply after the 2019 peak
After a peak of 10 filings in 2019, activity dipped before climbing from 1 filing in 2021 to 5 in 2024 — a +400% increase. That is a real acceleration in a small dataset, not a rounding artefact, and it lines up with renewed commercial fusion investment in the same window.
Reactor-system claims outnumber magnet-engineering claims
G21B (fusion reactors) covers 96.9% of records, but H01F, the subclass most specific to magnet engineering itself, covers only 25.0%. Most filings claim the reactor system that uses a superconducting magnet rather than the magnet's own winding, cooling or quench-protection design.
Filing activity is US-weighted with a real PCT tail
The United States receives the largest single share of filings at 12, with WIPO (PCT) filings at 6 and Canada at 5 indicating deliberate multi-jurisdiction strategy behind a subset of the portfolio rather than purely domestic filing.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to superconducting magnet for fusion patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to three practical next steps for a team deciding where to file or where to watch.
Map the magnet-engineering white space
H01F sits at only 25.0% of records against G21B's 96.9%, suggesting the coil winding, quench-protection and cooling-system claims specific to the magnet itself are less crowded than the reactor-system claims wrapped around it.
Explore magnet claim space in EurekaTrack the leader-plus-tail structure
A leader at 6 records and a fifth-place assignee at 2 shows a steep drop after the top of the ranking; watching how the tail of single- and double-filing entrants evolves is a leading indicator of new competitive entry.
Monitor assignee activity in EurekaRevisit the trend once 2025-2026 data settles
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true scale of the 2021-2024 acceleration will not be confirmed until later filing years finish publishing.
Set a filing alert in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
The assignee ranking for this dataset lists 13 companies and institutions, with a single leader holding 6 of the 32 records in scope. The top 5 combined account for 68.8% of all records, and the top 10 reach 96.9%, meaning the field is concentrated among a small group of national research institutes, universities and a few companies rather than spread across many independent filers. A newcomer assessing freedom to operate should expect to be filing against this same short list rather than into open ground.
Filings grew sharply from 1 in 2021 to 5 in 2024, a +400% increase over that three-year span, following an earlier peak of 10 filings in 2019. The apparent dip in the most recent one or two years should not be read as a slowdown: publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete. The confirmed trend through 2024 points to renewed acceleration, consistent with increased commercial and public investment in fusion energy over the same period.
Almost all records, 96.9% of the 32 in scope, sit in IPC class G21B, fusion reactors, confirming the corpus is centred on fusion reactor systems rather than superconducting magnets in general. Within that, H10N (other electric solid-state devices) appears in 40.6% of records and H01F (magnets, inductors & transformers), the subclass most specific to the magnet's own engineering, in only 25.0%. Smaller shares touch semiconductor devices, spacecraft applications, plasma and particle accelerators, and metal heat treatment and alloys, marking adjacent materials and applications work rather than the core claim territory.
The most-cited record in this dataset is US20110188623A1, 'Rotating High Density Fusion Reactor for aneutronic and neutronic fusion,' cited 41 times, followed by US20240290505A1, 'Magnetic confinement fusion reactor,' cited 29 times. High citation counts inside a searched corpus tend to favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations, so these figures are better read as a signal of influence on later filings than as a ranking of current technical importance.
The clearest gap sits between the reactor-system claims, which dominate at 96.9% of records under G21B, and the magnet-specific engineering claims under H01F, which cover only 25.0% of records. That gap suggests coil winding architecture, quench-protection systems and cryogenic cooling integration specific to the magnet itself are comparatively under-claimed relative to the reactor systems built around them. A team with genuine magnet-engineering innovation may find more open claim space there than in the crowded reactor-system layer.
Research Superconducting Magnet for Fusion Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole superconducting magnet for fusion 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.