Tritium Breeding Blanket Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 76.9% concentration. The top five assignees hold 30 of the 39 records in scope — a small group controls most of the documented claim space.
- Filing has flattened since 2021. The peak year so far is 2021 at 13 records, and the 2022 midpoint of 10 shows growth has not continued at that pace.
- G21B dominates, but structural claims trail behind. 84.6% of records sit in fusion reactors (G21B), while alloys (C22C) and welding/brazing (B23K) cover far fewer — a gap between blanket concepts and the materials that must survive inside them.
Filing growth compares 2021 (13 records) with 2024 (1) — 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 39 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Tritium breeding blanket design sits at the intersection of fusion reactor engineering and materials science: the blanket must breed enough tritium to sustain the fuel cycle, multiply neutrons efficiently, extract tritium without excessive permeation loss, and survive the coolant and structural loads inside a reactor vessel. This landscape reviews 39 published records filed between 2015 and 2026 that reference tritium breeding ratio, neutron multiplier beryllium, tritium permeation, extraction loop, coolant selection helium, liquid metal, or structural material claims tied to breeder blankets or lithium ceramic breeders. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent year in the trend understates actual filing activity.
The dataset is small relative to mainstream energy patent fields, which is itself informative: tritium breeding blanket design remains a specialised, largely pre-commercial claim space where a handful of national labs, fusion developers and research institutes account for nearly all activity.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 39 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which technology classes the claims fall into.
Filing trend, 2015-2026
Filing rose to a peak of 13 records in 2021, then eased toward the 2022 midpoint of 10, consistent with a field that expanded quickly around early fusion-blanket demonstration programmes and has since levelled off rather than continued to accelerate.
IPC subclass composition
G21B (fusion reactors) covers 84.6% of the 39 records, confirming that most filings are framed as fusion-reactor subject matter rather than generic nuclear engineering. Materials-facing classes such as C22C (alloys, 17.9%) and B23K (welding, soldering and brazing, 7.7%) appear in a much smaller share, which is worth noting given how much of blanket durability actually depends on structural material choices and joining methods.
Shares are the percentage of the 39 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Tritium Breeding Blanket Design with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about tritium breeding blanket design and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited records
EP4174874B1 — computer-implemented tritium breeding ratio optimisation for a fusion reactor blanket
Filed by Southwestern Institute of Physics and granted 2024-07-10, this record claims a computer-implemented method for optimising the global tritium breeding ratio of a fusion reactor blanket, tying design parameters to a modelled breeding outcome rather than to a specific physical blanket structure.Method-level claims over breeding-ratio optimisation can sit above multiple physical blanket designs, which matters for anyone documenting a new geometry or material stack that still relies on similar optimisation logic.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4735762A | Laser or charged-particle-beam fusion reactor with direct electric generation by magnetic flux compression | 66 |
| 2 | US20120014491A1 | Nuclear fusion power plant having a liquid reactor core of molten glass that is made laseractive and function… | 60 |
| 3 | CN104616703A | 一种用于聚变堆的Flibe熔盐包层结构 | 18 |
| 4 | CN103500588A | 基于氘氧化锂重水溶液的氚增殖包层系统 | 12 |
| 5 | WO2022106609A1 | Breeder blanket | 7 |
| 6 | JP1989313794A | Structure of tritium breeding blanket | 7 |
| 7 | GB958088A | Improvements in or relating to fast nuclear reactors | 5 |
| 8 | WO2022162393A1 | Nuclear fusion breeder blanket | 4 |
| 9 | GB878180A | Nuclear reactor | 3 |
| 10 | US20240127973A1 | Nuclear fusion breeder blanket | 2 |
Citation counts favour older records in a searched corpus and should be read as a signal of influence, not of current technical importance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 findings that shape where a new filing in this space would land relative to existing claims.
A small group controls most of the claim space
Five assignees account for 30 of the 39 records in scope, and the top ten reach 97.4%. A new entrant is filing into a field where nearly all prior art of record sits with a short list of national labs and fusion developers, not a diffuse long tail.
Filing growth has not continued past its early peak
The trend rose to 13 records in 2021 and the 2022 midpoint sits at 10, indicating flat-to-declining activity rather than sustained acceleration. Recent-year totals should be read cautiously given the usual 18-month publication lag.
Structural material claims are comparatively thin
Most records are classified as fusion-reactor subject matter (G21B), while alloy (C22C) and welding/brazing (B23K) classes cover a much smaller share of the same 39 records. That gap is a filing opportunity for structural and joining claims tied specifically to blanket survivability.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to tritium breeding blanket design, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders span national fusion programmes, a state-backed energy department, and a small set of commercial and academic filers. Recent-year momentum across the group has slowed rather than accelerated.
One assignee holds a clear lead
The top-ranked assignee holds 11 of the 39 records, well ahead of the field, and its recent-year filings show no new activity in the latest year alongside most other tracked assignees.
A tight mid-tier below the leader
Fifth place holds 3 records, and the gap down to tenth place at 1 record shows the field thins out quickly rather than supporting a broad competitive middle.
Recent-year filing has gone quiet across the board
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including the leading commercial and government filers, shows zero filings in the latest year. Given the typical publication lag, this likely reflects reporting delay as much as an actual pause.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Tokamak Energy | 0 | — |
| OXFORD SIGMA LIMITED | 0 | — |
| UK Atomic Energy Authority | 0 | — |
| SEWELL GARY | 0 | -100% |
| DAVIS & MUSGROVE LTD | 0 | — |
| United States Department of Energy | 0 | — |
| Southwestern Institute of Physics | 0 | — |
| Kawasaki Heavy Industries | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated, currently quiet field with specific gaps in materials-facing claims. The next steps depend on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate or identifying where to file.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leading assignees
With 76.9% of records held by five assignees, any new blanket design should be checked claim-by-claim against that concentrated group before further development spend.
Run a freedom-to-operate scan in EurekaMap the structural-material white space
Alloy and welding/brazing classes cover a small share of the 39 records relative to fusion-reactor framing, suggesting room for claims tied to joining methods and material survivability under blanket conditions.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack recent-year filings as they publish
Recent-year momentum reads as zero across tracked assignees, which is partly a publication-lag artefact. Monitoring newly published records over the next 12-18 months will clarify whether activity has actually slowed.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions about tritium breeding blanket patents
Within this 39-record dataset, one assignee leads with 11 records, well ahead of the rest of the field. The top five assignees combined hold 30 records, or 76.9% of all records in scope, and the top ten reach 97.4%. This means the great majority of documented prior art in this niche sits with a short list of national fusion programmes, a government energy department, and a small number of commercial and academic filers, rather than being spread across many independent inventors.
Filing rose to a peak of 13 records in 2021 and the 2022 midpoint sits at 10 records, which points to flat or declining activity rather than continued growth. Recent years show little to no new filing across tracked assignees, but publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years understate real activity. A clearer read on the current trajectory will only be possible once those recent filings work through to publication.
Fusion reactors (IPC class G21B) cover 84.6% of the 39 records, making it by far the dominant classification. Materials-facing classes are thinner: alloys (C22C) appear in 17.9% of records and welding, soldering and brazing (B23K) in 7.7%. Since blanket durability depends heavily on structural materials and joining techniques, this gap suggests claims specifically tied to those areas are comparatively under-filed relative to broader fusion-reactor framing.
EP4174874B1, granted to Southwestern Institute of Physics in July 2024, claims a computer-implemented method for optimising the global tritium breeding ratio of a fusion reactor blanket. Because the claim operates at the level of an optimisation method rather than a specific physical blanket structure, it can potentially sit above multiple different physical designs that rely on similar breeding-ratio modelling logic. Anyone developing a new blanket geometry or material stack should check whether their design or optimisation process falls within this method's scope, independent of how physically different the blanket itself looks.
The clearest gaps sit in materials and subsystem claims that are under-represented relative to the dominant fusion-reactor framing: structural joining methods, tritium permeation barrier coatings, helium coolant loop integration, and extraction loop material compatibility all show thinner coverage in the IPC composition data than the core G21B fusion-reactor class. Given the field's overall concentration among a handful of assignees, a first claim written specifically around one of these sub-areas, rather than a general blanket concept, is more likely to land in open space than to overlap with the leading assignees' existing filings.
Research Tritium Breeding Blanket Design in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole tritium breeding blanket design 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.