Acid Mine Drainage Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing is concentrated but not locked up. the ranked leader holds 308 records while the top 5 combined account for 17.5% of all 4,747 records in scope.
- Water treatment dominates the claim space. C02F covers 39.8% of records, more than double the next-largest class, C22B metal extraction at 15.1%.
- Filing has cooled from its 2017 peak of 345. but the 2021-to-2024 comparison shows only a 17% decline, not a collapse, over that complete three-year window.
Filing growth compares 2021 (229 records) with 2024 (191) — 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 4,747 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the acid mine drainage patent record actually covers
Acid mine drainage forms when sulfide minerals exposed by mining oxidise on contact with water and air, releasing acidity and dissolved metals into surrounding watersheds. The patent record built around the search term “Acid Mine Drainage” spans 4,747 published records from 2015 through the current filing year, and it is broader than a single remediation technique: it reaches from bulk water treatment chemistry into microbial engineering, catalysis and separation processes, and even into medicinal-preparation classes where bioremediation organisms overlap with pharmaceutical claims. The bulk of the activity sits in water and wastewater treatment, but a meaningful share of filings treat acid mine drainage as a resource stream — recovering metals rather than only neutralising acidity.
That split matters for anyone reading the landscape for strategic intent. A filing in C02F is usually defending a treatment process; a filing that also touches C22B is more likely staking a claim on metal recovery economics, where the drainage stream itself becomes a low-grade ore feed. Reading the two classes together, rather than picking one, is the more accurate way to size where the commercial pressure actually is.
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 dataset covers 4,747 published records filed between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in the trend line will always understate true filing activity — read the tail as incomplete, not as a real slowdown.
Filings rose to a 2017 peak, then eased through a still-active mid-decade
Annual filings peaked at 345 in 2017. Using the last fully comparable three-year window, 2021 filings of 229 fell to 191 in 2024, a 17% decline — a cooling, not a collapse, and one that still leaves several hundred families entering the record each complete year.
Water treatment leads; metal recovery and microbial engineering follow
C02F (water and wastewater treatment) appears in 39.8% of the 4,747 records, making it the dominant classification by a wide margin. C22B (metal extraction and refining) at 15.1% and C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) at 12.3% form a second tier, with catalysis (B01J), separation (B01D), medicinal preparations (A61K), inorganic compounds (C01B) and biocides (A01N) each covering between roughly 5.5% and 9.4% of records. Because records carry multiple classes, these figures sum to well over 100% and should be read as overlapping technology footprints, not a partition.
Shares are the percentage of the 4,747 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Tailings & Mine-Waste Management: Acid Mine Drainage Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about tailings & mine-waste management: acid mine drainage patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative claim: treating the drainage stream directly
Acid mine drainage treatment (University of Venda, 2024)
A method of treating acid mine drainage with calcium phosphate: the drainage is combined with a treatment agent containing a phosphate compound, under conditions that favour removal of contaminants, producing a treated stream with contaminant concentrations below the pre-treatment level.The claim scope centres on a phosphate-based chemical treatment agent and the resulting contaminant-reduction outcome, rather than on a specific reactor design or delivery apparatus.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4067390A | Apparatus and method for the recovery of fuel products from subterranean deposits of carbonaceous matter usin… | 486 |
| 2 | US6251280B1 | Imprint-coating synthesis of selective functionalized ordered mesoporous sorbents for separation and sensors | 314 |
| 3 | US20100120104A1 | Biological and chemical process utilizing chemoautotrophic microorganisms for the chemosythetic fixation of c… | 256 |
| 4 | US20110024361A1 | Aqueous treatment apparatus utilizing precursor materials and ultrasonics to generate customized oxidation-re… | 238 |
| 5 | US5863433A | Reciprocating subsurface-flow constructed wetlands for improving wastewater treatment | 168 |
| 6 | US5766478A | Water-soluble polymers for recovery of metal ions from aqueous streams | 161 |
| 7 | US6237284B1 | Method for recycling carbon dioxide for enhancing plant growth | 157 |
| 8 | WO2018064371A1 | RNA-guided nucleic acid modifying enzymes and methods of use thereof | 142 |
| 9 | US5505857A | Process for the treatment of metal-containing water and recovery of metals therefrom | 142 |
| 10 | US5893975A | Enhanced subsurface flow constructed wetland | 135 |
Citation counts are drawn from a searched corpus and skew toward older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations — treat them as a signal of historical influence, not of what matters most today.
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 the field's shape
Four figures anchor how concentrated, how classified and how active this field currently is.
The leader is large, but the field is not closed
The ranked leader holds 308 records against a total of 4,747, and the top 5 combined reach 17.5% of all records in scope. That leaves the large majority of filing activity spread across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants, including universities and national research bodies.
Water treatment chemistry is the largest single claim area
C02F outweighs every other class by a wide margin, but C22B metal extraction at 15.1% and C12N microbial engineering at 12.3% show the field is not purely a water-chemistry problem — recovery economics and biological routes both carry real filing weight.
Activity has eased from its 2017 peak without disappearing
From a 2017 peak of 345 filings, the complete-year comparison of 2021 (229) to 2024 (191) shows a 17% decline. Recent-year figures beyond 2024 are still filling in as publications catch up with filing dates, so they should not be read as confirming a steeper drop.
The US and PCT route carry most of the volume
The United States receives the largest single share of filings at 1,354 records, followed by WIPO's PCT route at 592 and the EPO at 521. Australia (459) and Canada (389) — both major mining jurisdictions — outrank China (218) in this dataset, consistent with where large-scale mine-waste liability sits.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to tailings & mine-waste management: acid mine drainage patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the collaboration ties sit
The ranking covers 100 companies and research bodies, counted in records — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, but the full ranked list the dataset returns. It mixes specialist mining-technology firms, agricultural and biotech companies, national research organisations and university systems, reflecting how many disciplines converge on this problem.
One filer sits well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 308 records, more than three times the count at fifth place (90). That gap suggests a sustained, dedicated filing programme rather than opportunistic single filings.
The drop-off past the leader is steep, then flattens
By tenth place, the count falls to 52 records — still a substantial programme, but the top 10 combined reach only 23.7% of all 4,747 records, meaning nearly three-quarters of filing activity sits outside the ten most active organisations.
Co-filing is limited and mostly institutional
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest of them link university research foundations with national laboratories rather than pairing commercial rivals — a sign that most organisations here are filing independently rather than through joint ventures.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon Technology Holdings LLC | 3 | -70% |
| NATIVE MICROBIALS INC | 3 | -50% |
| Snipr Technologies | 0 | -100% |
| Kiverdi Inc | 0 | -100% |
| The Regents of the University of California | 0 | — |
| Native Microbials Inc | 0 | — |
| Ecolab USA Inc | 0 | — |
| Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis next
The landscape points to specific follow-up questions rather than a single conclusion.
Map the metal-recovery overlap in detail
Records that sit in both C02F and C22B treat drainage as a resource stream, not just a hazard. Pulling that overlap out separately would show whether recovery-focused claims are still open or already dense.
Explore overlap in EurekaTrack the leader's recent filing behaviour
With the top assignee holding 308 records against a fifth-place figure of 90, understanding whether that lead is still growing or has plateaued shapes how much freedom-to-operate risk concentrates around one filer.
Run assignee monitoring in EurekaCheck biocide and medicinal-preparation crossover claims
A61K and A01N together cover a meaningful share of records, suggesting bioremediation organisms are being claimed on both agrochemical and pharmaceutical grounds. That dual framing is worth verifying claim-by-claim before assuming either class is settled.
Search cross-class claims in EurekaCommon questions about acid mine drainage patents
The dataset behind this landscape contains 4,747 published records matching the search term "Acid Mine Drainage", filed between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off date. This counts patent families across multiple jurisdictions, not just US filings, and includes both dedicated treatment technologies and broader water-treatment or metal-recovery patents that reference acid mine drainage in their scope. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true count for the most recent one to two years will be higher once those records finish publishing.
Filing is concentrated at the top but not dominated by a single company: the leading assignee holds 308 records, while the top 5 assignees combined account for 17.5% of all 4,747 records in scope. Beyond the leader, the field includes a long tail of universities, national research organisations and specialist mining-technology firms, each holding smaller but often technically focused portfolios. This mix reflects how acid mine drainage sits at the intersection of chemical engineering, microbiology and mining operations rather than belonging to one industry.
Water and wastewater treatment chemistry, classified under IPC subclass C02F, appears in 39.8% of all records and is by far the largest single technology area. Metal extraction and refining (C22B) follows at 15.1%, and microorganism-based approaches (C12N) account for 12.3%, showing that biological remediation and metal-recovery routes both carry real weight alongside conventional chemical treatment. Smaller but still notable shares appear in catalysis, filtration and separation, and even medicinal-preparation and biocide classes, reflecting how remediation organisms sometimes get claimed on pharmaceutical or agrochemical grounds.
Filing peaked in 2017 at 345 records and has eased since, with the most recent complete three-year comparison showing 229 filings in 2021 falling to 191 in 2024, a 17% decline. That is a cooling in filing pace, not a collapse, and it still represents a few hundred new filings in any complete year. Figures for 2025 onward will look artificially low simply because publication has not caught up with filing dates yet, so they should not be read as continuing that same rate of decline.
The densest claim territory sits in bulk water treatment (C02F) and metal extraction (C22B), which together make up the majority of records with multiple classifications. Comparatively lighter claim density shows up in more specific sub-areas such as selective phosphate-based precipitation agents, chemoautotrophic microbial carbon-fixation routes applied directly to drainage streams, and mesoporous sorbent functionalisation for selective metal capture. These narrower branches sit adjacent to the crowded core classes and are worth checking individually before assuming the space is fully claimed.
US20240076212A1 claims a method of treating acid mine drainage using a phosphate-containing treatment agent, specifically calcium phosphate, under conditions favouring contaminant removal. Its claim scope centres on that phosphate-based chemistry and the resulting reduced-contaminant outcome, not on a particular reactor, apparatus or delivery mechanism. Someone using a different treatment agent chemistry, or achieving contaminant removal through a physical or biological rather than phosphate-precipitation route, would likely sit outside this specific claim's scope, though a full freedom-to-operate check against the claim language is still the only reliable way to confirm that.
Research Tailings & Mine-Waste Management: Acid Mine Drainage Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole tailings & mine-waste management: acid mine drainage 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.