Tungsten & Molybdenum Extraction Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The five leading assignees hold 31.8% of all 1,589 records in scope, and the top ten hold 44.1% — this field is not a level playing field.
- Filing has cooled from its 2021 peak. Annual filings ran from 54 in 2021 to 21 in 2024, a 61% drop over that three-year span, before the most recent, still-incomplete years.
- Catalysis dominates the claim map. 68.2% of records sit in B01J (chemical/physical processes and catalysis), meaning most protected ground is process chemistry, not raw ore separation.
Filing growth compares 2021 (54 records) with 2024 (21) — 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 1,589 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Tungsten and molybdenum extraction sits at the intersection of ore-processing metallurgy and industrial catalyst chemistry. The search behind this page combines classic hydrometallurgical terms — scheelite decomposition, autoclave leaching, ammonium paratungstate — with the downstream chemistry that converts these intermediates into catalysts and reduced metal powders, including rhenium recovery and reduction to powder. The result is a corpus of 1,589 published records running from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off.
The IPC composition below shows the field leans heavily toward catalytic and organic-chemistry classes rather than pure mineral separation, which tells a filer that the crowded ground is downstream processing chemistry, not the mining step itself.
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
Annual filing counts and IPC class distribution across the 1,589 records in scope, drawn directly from the underlying dataset.
A peak in 2021, then a pull-back
Filings rose from 32 in 2017 to a peak of 54 in 2021, then fell to 21 by 2024 — a 61% decline over that three-year window. 2025 and 2026 figures are still low because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months; they should not be read as a continuing decline yet.
Catalysis and organic chemistry classes dominate
B01J (chemical/physical processes and catalysis) covers 68.2% of the 1,589 records, with C07C (acyclic and carbocyclic compounds) at 43.3% and C07B (general organic chemistry methods) at 21.7%. Separation processes proper (B01D) appear in only 14.7% of records, and battery-related filings (H01M) in 4.3% — a reminder that most of the documented activity is catalyst and intermediate chemistry built on tungsten/molybdenum inputs, not battery-grade metal recovery.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,589 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Tungsten and Molybdenum Extraction with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about tungsten and molybdenum extraction and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited records
US3637526A — Preparation of oxidation catalyst
A process for preparing an oxidation catalyst containing molybdenum, tungsten, tellurium and oxygen, used for oxidising propylene to acrolein. The preferred route forms an aqueous solution of ammonium paratungstate and ammonium molybdate, evaporates and pulverises the solid, calcines at about 400°C, then mixes in tellurium dioxide and calcines again — giving longer catalyst life for the propylene-to-acrolein reaction.Filed by Celanese Corporation, granted 1972 — an early anchor point for the ammonium paratungstate / ammonium molybdate co-precipitation route that recurs across later filings in this corpus.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4085193A | Catalytic process for reducing nitrogen oxides to nitrogen | 368 |
| 2 | EP0293224A1 | Process for production of acrylic acid | 238 |
| 3 | EP0293859A1 | Catalyst for oxidation of acrolein and process for production thereof | 215 |
| 4 | US4422960A | Catalysts for hydrotreatment of heavy hydrocarbon oils containing asphaltenes | 187 |
| 5 | US4749671A | Exhaust gas cleaning catalyst and process for production thereof | 170 |
| 6 | US4438217A | Catalyst for oxidation of propylene | 165 |
| 7 | US6040087A | Powdery material, electrode member, and method for manufacturing same for a secondary cell | 141 |
| 8 | EP0279374A1 | Catalyst for oxidation of olefin or tertiary alcohol and process for production thereof | 139 |
| 9 | US4012340A | Process for preparing catalysts for hydrodesulfurization | 139 |
| 10 | US4537874A | Catalyst for production of unsaturated aldehydes | 132 |
Citation counts are measured inside this searched corpus and favour older, foundational filings — treat them as a signal of influence rather than of current 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 data means for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once concentration, timing and classification are laid side by side.
A narrow set of filers holds a large share of the record base
The top five assignees together account for 31.8% of all 1,589 records, and the top ten for 44.1%. That is a meaningfully concentrated field for a metallurgy-adjacent category, and it means freedom-to-operate work here should start with the ranked leaders' portfolios rather than a broad novelty search.
Filing activity has pulled back from its 2021 peak
Annual filings fell 61% from 54 in 2021 to 21 in 2024. None of the leading assignees show new activity in the latest tracked year, consistent with a field that has moved past its most active filing window rather than one still accelerating.
The crowded ground is catalyst chemistry, not ore separation
B01J covers over two-thirds of records, while B01D (separation processes) covers only 14.7%. A filer targeting a purely mechanical or hydrometallurgical separation improvement is working in comparatively open ground relative to catalytic conversion claims.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to tungsten and molybdenum extraction, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where it is still open
The ranked leaders cluster around catalyst manufacturing rather than mine-site metallurgy, and several file jointly with the same partners repeatedly.
A single leader holds a large lead over the field
The top-ranked assignee's 266 records dwarf the fifth-place count of 43 and the tenth-place count of 35, showing a steep drop-off rather than a gradual taper immediately below the leader.
Joint filing is concentrated among a handful of recurring partners
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest pairings filing jointly more than a dozen times. This points to a small number of stable industrial partnerships — likely equipment-and-process or catalyst-and-plant collaborations — rather than a broad web of alliances.
Filing is weighted toward the US and Europe, with Japan close behind
The United States (464) and the European Patent Office (347) lead receiving-office counts, with Japan (220) a clear third. India (77), Canada (60) and the UK (81) trail well behind, suggesting enforcement and licensing strategy should prioritise the US/EU/Japan triangle first.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Nippon Shokubai Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Babcock-Hitachi K.K. | 0 | — |
| Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation | 0 | — |
| Nitto Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| BASF SE | 0 | — |
| Mitsubishi Rayon Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Hyperion Catalysis International, Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing or new filing.
Map the leader's claim boundaries
With one assignee holding 266 records against a fifth-place count of 43, a freedom-to-operate review should start by mapping exactly what that portfolio's independent claims cover before assuming open ground elsewhere.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaWatch the post-2024 filings as they publish
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true 2025-2026 filing level will not be visible until later; set a watch on new publications rather than concluding the field has gone quiet.
Set up a filing alert in EurekaTest claims in the under-claimed branches
Separation processes and battery-grade reduction routes carry markedly lower filing density than catalysis claims, making them a reasonable starting point for a novelty search ahead of new R&D investment.
Run a novelty search in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
Filing in this field is concentrated: the top five assignees together hold 31.8% of the 1,589 records in scope, and the top ten hold 44.1%. The single top-ranked assignee alone holds 266 records, well ahead of the fifth-placed holder at 43 and the tenth-placed holder at 35. This steep drop-off means competitive intelligence work should treat the leader's portfolio as a distinct block rather than assume filings are evenly spread across the ranked field.
No — filing activity peaked in 2021 at 54 records and fell to 21 by 2024, a 61% decline over that span. The most recent one to two years in the dataset will always look artificially low because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025-2026 figures should not yet be read as continued decline. Taken together, the trend through the last complete year points to a field past its most active filing window rather than one still accelerating.
Chemical and physical process claims under IPC class B01J cover 68.2% of the 1,589 records, making catalysis the single largest technology bucket. Organic chemistry classes C07C (43.3%) and C07B (21.7%) also appear frequently, reflecting how much of this corpus concerns catalyst manufacture rather than raw ore processing. Pure separation processes (B01D) appear in only 14.7% of records, and battery-related filings (H01M) in just 4.3%, indicating those are comparatively less-crowded areas of claim space.
The clearest gaps sit outside the dominant B01J catalysis cluster: separation processes (14.7% of records), battery-grade powder reduction (4.3% under H01M), and specific process steps like ion-exchange purification of tungstate liquors or rhenium co-recovery during molybdenite roasting. These branches show markedly lower filing density than catalyst-conversion claims, which is a reasonable signal — though not a guarantee — that less prior art stands in the way of a new filing there.
US3637526A, assigned to Celanese Corporation and granted in 1972, describes preparing a molybdenum-tungsten-tellurium oxidation catalyst via co-precipitation of ammonium paratungstate and ammonium molybdate, followed by calcination and tellurium dioxide addition, for oxidising propylene to acrolein. It is a foundational filing for the ammonium paratungstate/ammonium molybdate route that recurs across later records in this corpus, but its age means any original claims have long since expired. Its continuing relevance is as prior art and as a reference point for how the core chemistry route is typically described, not as an active infringement risk.
Research Tungsten and Molybdenum Extraction in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole tungsten and molybdenum extraction 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.