Thickened and Paste Tailings Patents: Who Leads, Gaps 2026
- 48.9% of all 184 records in scope sit with just five assignees, and 77.7% sit with ten — this field is tightly held at the top with a long tail below it.
- Filing has plateaued, not grown, since 2021: the count held flat at 2021 = 2 and 2024 = 2, a 0% change over that span, even as the peak year (2019, 11 filings) is well behind it.
- Water and separation chemistry dominate the claims, with C02F and B01D covering 45.7% and 36.4% of records respectively, while metal extraction (C22B) appears in only 7.1%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 records) with 2024 (2) — 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 184 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the thickened and paste tailings patent record shows
Thickened and paste tailings technology sits at the intersection of dewatering chemistry and heavy-industry waste handling. The 184 records in scope, spanning 2015 through the current data cut-off, cluster around a small set of control variables that recur across filings: yield stress control, flocculant dosage, underflow density, rake torque, beach slope angle and water recovery. These are the levers operators actually tune on a deep cone thickener, and the patent language tracks them closely.
Filing activity is concentrated in oil sands tailings management, where thickener underflow chemistry and water recycling carry direct cost and regulatory weight, but the same claim language recurs in mining and mineral processing more broadly. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any trend understate real activity.
Filing trends and technology composition
The dataset spans 184 published records tied to thickened and paste tailings across the 2015–2026 window, drawn from receiving offices led by Canada, the United States and Australia, with IPC coverage weighted toward water treatment and separation processes.
A field that has plateaued, not accelerated
Filings ran from 10 in 2017 to a peak of 11 in 2019, then settled into a flat pattern: 2021 and 2024 both recorded 2 filings, a 0% change over that three-year span. Readers should not read the 2025–2026 drop-off as decline; it reflects publication lag rather than a slowdown in underlying R&D.
Water treatment and separation lead the technology mix
C02F (water and wastewater treatment) appears in 45.7% of records and B01D (separation processes, including filtration) in 36.4%, confirming that dewatering chemistry is the dominant claim territory. C10G (hydrocarbon oils and refining) at 26.6% ties the field to oil sands processing specifically, while C22B (metal extraction) at only 7.1% marks a comparatively thin corner of the claim map.
Shares are the percentage of the 184 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Thickened and Paste Tailings with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about thickened and paste tailings and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records other filings build on
CA2363932A1 — Management of segregating industrial tailings by using thickeners producing segregated thickened tailings
The filing claims a method for managing segregating industrial tailings — including tailings from oil sands, mining and coal — by thickening them into a segregated thickened tailings stream. Thickener underflow becomes the engineered tailings product; thickener overflow becomes release water that is reconditioned and recycled, with fast water recovery identified as the key operational outcome.Filed by OZUM, BAKI; dated 2003-05-23.
View full filing details| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US8424601B2 | System and method for minimizing the negative enviromental impact of the oilsands industry | 77 |
| 2 | US20100147516A1 | System and method for minimizing the negative enviromental impact of the oilsands industry | 59 |
| 3 | US4399039A | Treatment of tailings pond sludge | 58 |
| 4 | US4437998A | Method for treating oil sands extraction plant tailings | 48 |
| 5 | US20110061610A1 | Heat and Water Recovery From Oil Sands Waste Streams | 31 |
| 6 | US20080099380A1 | Bitumen and thermal recovery from oil sand tailings | 30 |
| 7 | US20130075340A1 | Oil sands fine tailings flocculation using dynamic mixing | 29 |
| 8 | WO2001016591A1 | Apparatus and method for detecting the level of a mud bed | 25 |
| 9 | US20140116956A1 | Co-processing of fluid fine tailings and fresh oil sands tailings | 24 |
| 10 | US20110135797A1 | Flocculation method | 22 |
Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and favour older filings; they are not 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 mean for a filing decision
Three patterns matter more than the raw counts: where citation weight sits, how tightly the top of the assignee ranking holds the field, and which technology branches carry the bulk of claim density.
Influence sits with a handful of early oil sands filings
The most-cited records — US8424601B2, US20100147516A1, US4399039A and US4437998A — all address oil sands tailings and water recovery specifically, and their citation counts are an order of magnitude above later filings. That pattern favours the oldest, foundational filings, not necessarily the most technically current ones.
The field is held tightly at the top
Five assignees account for 90 of the 184 records in scope, and ten account for 143. The leader alone holds 29 records, more than double the fifth-placed assignee's 13 — this is a field where a small group of filers has built dense, overlapping claim positions.
Dewatering chemistry outweighs mineral-specific claims
Water and wastewater treatment (C02F) and separation processes (B01D) together cover the majority of records, while metal extraction (C22B) sits at just 7.1%. Claim activity tracks the dewatering and recycling problem more than any single ore or mineral stream.
Growth has flattened since the 2019 peak
After peaking at 11 filings in 2019, activity settled to a steady low level: 2 filings in 2021 and 2 in 2024, no net growth across that span. Recent-year momentum tables show the leading assignees with 0 filings in the latest tracked year, consistent with a mature filing base rather than an emerging one.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to thickened and paste tailings, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
The assignee ranking covers 42 companies in total — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, but the full ranking the dataset returns. Filing activity concentrates sharply at the top, with three co-assignee pairs showing where collaboration has occurred at all.
One filer holds more than double the fifth-place count
The top-ranked assignee's 29 records outpace the fifth-placed filer's 13 by more than two to one, and the tenth-placed filer holds 9 — a steep drop-off that marks this as a leader-and-field structure rather than an even spread.
Joint filing is rare and concentrated in one pairing
Only three co-assignee pairs appear across the full dataset. The strongest, at 10 shared records, links an oil sands operator with its upstream research affiliate — a sign that even the collaborative activity that exists tracks internal corporate structure rather than cross-company alliances.
Even the top filers show no latest-year activity
Recent-year momentum data shows the leading assignees — including the largest oil sands and chemicals filers in the ranking — recording 0 filings in the latest tracked year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this reflects incomplete data rather than an actual halt in filing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| The Chemours Co FC LLC | 0 | — |
| E I du Pont de Nemours & Co | 0 | — |
| Suncor Inc | 0 | — |
| IMPERIAL OIL RESOURCES LTD | 0 | — |
| BASF SE | 0 | — |
| CIDRA Corp Services Inc | 0 | — |
| Nalco Co | 0 | — |
| Syncrude Canada Ltd | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to a mature, concentrated field with specific technical corners still open. Two directions make sense from here.
Map claim boundaries around the top filers
With 77.7% of records held by ten assignees, freedom-to-operate work should start by mapping the specific claim language of the leading filers' underflow density and flocculant dosage patents before drafting new claims in the same space.
Explore assignee claim maps in EurekaProbe the under-claimed branches directly
Beach slope angle control and rake torque monitoring show thinner density than the core water-recovery classes. A targeted prior-art search in these branches will show whether that thinness reflects genuine white space or simply narrower filing language.
Run a white-space search in EurekaQuestions practitioners ask about this field
In this dataset the two terms are treated as closely related dewatering outcomes rather than distinct legal categories, both defined by the underflow density and yield stress achieved at the thickener. Claims typically distinguish them by the degree of dewatering and the resulting rheology, with paste tailings sitting at a higher yield stress and lower water content than thickened tailings. Filings tend to claim the process and control method — flocculant dosage, rake torque, underflow density — rather than the tailings product itself, which is why search strings combining both terms alongside process variables return a coherent single field rather than two separate ones.
The assignee ranking covers 42 companies, with filing activity concentrated sharply at the top: the leading assignee holds 29 of the 184 records in scope, more than double the fifth-placed filer's 13. The top five assignees combined account for 48.9% of all records, and the top ten account for 77.7%, meaning most of the remaining 32 companies in the ranking hold only a handful of filings each. Most of the leading filers are oil sands operators and specialty chemicals companies, reflecting the field's roots in oil sands tailings management.
Filing peaked in 2019 at 11 records and has since flattened rather than continued growing: the count held at 2 filings in both 2021 and 2024, a 0% change over that three-year span. That is consistent with a mature filing base rather than an emerging one, though the very latest years (2025–2026) are understated because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months. Anyone assessing momentum should treat the last one to two years in any chart as provisional rather than a sign of decline.
Water and wastewater treatment (IPC class C02F) is the largest single class, appearing in 45.7% of the 184 records in scope, followed by separation processes including filtration (B01D) at 36.4%. Hydrocarbon oils and refining (C10G) appears in 26.6% of records, tying much of the field to oil sands processing specifically, while ceramics and cement (C04B) and flotation (B03D) each cover meaningful but smaller shares. Metal extraction and refining (C22B) is comparatively thin at 7.1%, marking it as a less-claimed branch relative to the dewatering-focused classes.
The technology composition data shows metal extraction integration (C22B, 7.1% of records) and specific control mechanisms like beach slope angle and rake torque monitoring appearing far less often than the dominant water-treatment and separation classes. That thinner density does not guarantee an easy filing path, since foundational oil sands filings from the early 2000s and 2010s carry heavy citation weight and broad claim language. A practical next step is a targeted freedom-to-operate search in those specific sub-areas before drafting, rather than assuming thin IPC coverage means an open field.
Research Thickened and Paste Tailings in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole thickened and paste tailings 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.