Zeolite Catalyst Carbon Capture Patent Landscape 2026
- Filing has already peaked. 2022 (42 families) is the high point in the series; the run rate has since eased back toward levels last seen before 2020.
- B01D and B01J dominate the same claim territory. 350 and 311 records respectively fall in these two subclasses out of 398 total, meaning most filings overlap separation-process and catalysis claims at once.
- The strongest collaboration signal is a single pairing. ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company and Georgia Tech Research Corporation co-file more than any other pair (14 shared records), well ahead of the next closest tie.
Filing growth compares 2021 (15 records) with 2024 (33) — 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 398 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the dataset covers
The corpus tracks 398 patent families published between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off, filtered on zeolite, molecular sieve and carbon-capture-sorbent language inside separation and adsorption IPC codes. It is a claims-first view of a chemistry that has been worked over for gas separation since long before direct air capture became a funding category, so the record mixes legacy CO2/N2/H2S removal art with newer DAC-specific filings.
Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025–2026 counts in any trend chart understate real filing activity; treat the last one to two years as a floor, not a ceiling.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 398 families: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A peak-and-plateau curve, not a growth curve
Filings rose from 15 in 2017 to a peak of 42 in 2022, then eased down to 7 by 2026 — a partial year. Reading the midpoint against the peak, growth in this field is flat to declining rather than accelerating, which argues against treating zeolite CO2 sorbent chemistry as an emerging space.
Separation and catalysis carry almost all the weight
B01D (350 records) and B01J (311) between them touch nearly every filing in the set, with C01B (159) picking up inorganic-compound claims and C10L (40) marking fuel-adjacent uses. F25J, C10G and G01N appear only in single digits, which is a fair proxy for how little of this space has been claimed from the gas-liquefaction or analytical-instrumentation side.
Shares are the percentage of the 398 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Zeolite Catalyst Carbon Capture with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about zeolite catalyst carbon capture and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art and a representative recent filing
US20240001286A1 — Direct air capture and concentration of CO2 using adsorbents (TERRAFIXING INC., 2024-01-04)
Describes an enclosure holding a CO2 adsorbent bed together with a vacuum source, an input air source and a heater, so that the internal pressure and temperature can be controlled while capturing CO2 from cold, low-humidity air. The adsorbent family named includes zeolite, metal organic framework, covalent organic framework, silica or alumina, with the method built around controlled temperature/vacuum swing operation rather than a single sorbent chemistry.Note the claim is written across a sorbent family, not zeolite alone — a structural choice that widens what the grant can block.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20080282887A1 | Removal of CO2, N2, and H2S from gas mixtures containing same | 169 |
| 2 | US20090000475A1 | Zeolite membrane structures and methods of making zeolite membrane structures | 79 |
| 3 | US8545602B2 | Removal of CO<sub>2</sub>, N<sub>2</sub>, and H<sub>2</sub>S from gas mixtures containing same | 78 |
| 4 | US9108145B2 | Purification of air | 69 |
| 5 | US20050119112A1 | Process for production of molecular sieve adsorbent blends | 64 |
| 6 | US20060117952A1 | Syngas purification process | 63 |
| 7 | US7309378B2 | Syngas purification process | 57 |
| 8 | US20140157986A1 | DDR type zeolites with stabilized adsorption | 55 |
| 9 | US9095809B2 | Selectivation of adsorbents for gas separation | 53 |
| 10 | WO2017087385A1 | Adsorbent materials and methods of adsorbing carbon dioxide | 45 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to be cited; treat this table as a map of foundational art, not of current commercial priority.
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 imply for strategy
Three findings that shape where new filings can still land cleanly, and where they will simply add to an already dense pile.
The peak has passed, not arrived
Volume climbed from 15 families in 2017 to 42 in 2022, then declined toward 7 by 2026. Even allowing for publication lag, the shape is peak-and-decline rather than a ramp, which is unusual for a chemistry with active DAC interest.
Two subclasses absorb almost all the claim space
Out of 398 records, 350 sit in B01D and 311 in B01J — the overlap means most applicants are claiming separation apparatus and catalytic/adsorption chemistry together, leaving little room for a narrow single-subclass filing to stand out.
Filing is US-led but not US-only
The United States leads with 115 records, but China (78), WIPO/PCT (35), Canada (34), India (33) and Europe (30) all carry meaningful volume — a genuinely multi-jurisdiction filing pattern rather than a single home market.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to zeolite catalyst carbon capture, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company | Georgia Tech Research Corporation | 14 |
| DECKMAN HARRY W | RAVIKOVITCH PETER I | 7 |
| ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company | Georgia Tech Research Corporation | 5 |
| Ceca S.A. | IFP Energies nouvelles | 3 |
| DECKMAN HARRY W | WITTRIG ASHLEY M | 3 |
| DECKMAN HARRY W | WANG YU | 3 |
| DECKMAN HARRY W | STROHMAIER KARL G | 3 |
| DECKMAN HARRY W | LETA DANIEL P | 3 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the whole corpus, and the strongest one — ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company with Georgia Tech Research Corporation at 14 shared records — is roughly double the next closest tie. Most assignees in this field file alone.
Who holds the ground, and where the gaps sit
Recent-year momentum has stalled across the named assignees, which changes how a newcomer should read the ranking table.
The named leaders have gone quiet
ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, Asahi Kasei Corporation, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Georgia Tech Research Corporation and Ceca S.A. each show zero filings in the latest tracked year. Their historical volume built the ranking, but it is not being renewed in real time.
Partnerships are rare and narrow
The corpus contains only 10 co-assignee pairings against nearly 400 families. Where partnerships exist, they tend to link a corporate assignee with a university research arm rather than spanning multiple companies.
A named inventor pair sits inside the top corporate tie
DECKMAN HARRY W and RAVIKOVITCH PETER I co-appear on 7 records, likely underlying the broader corporate co-assignment between the two Exxon-linked entities. Tracking inventor moves here is as informative as tracking the corporate ranking.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company | 0 | — |
| Asahi Kasei Corporation | 0 | — |
| ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company | 0 | — |
| Chevron U.S.A. Inc. | 0 | — |
| Georgia Tech Research Corporation | 0 | — |
| Ceca S.A. | 0 | — |
| Arkema France | 0 | — |
| DECKMAN HARRY W | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing curve and the assignee table point in the same direction: established players are not renewing volume, and the open claim space sits outside the three core IPC subclasses.
Stress-test a filing concept against the cited art
Run a candidate claim against the most-cited records in this set before drafting, since several date back to broad gas-mixture separation grants that still shape freedom-to-operate.
Explore prior art in EurekaTrack the quiet leaders for re-entry signals
Six leading assignees show zero filings in the latest year; a licensing or acquisition move by any of them would be the leading indicator that the plateau is ending.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
Filing volume peaked at 42 families in 2022 and has declined since, reaching 7 by 2026, though that final year is still partial because publication lags filing by around 18 months. Read together, the trend is flat-to-declining rather than growing, so new activity is real but no longer accelerating. Anyone entering the space should expect to be filing into a mature, well-mapped claim base rather than a fresh one.
B01D (separation processes, 350 of 398 records) and B01J (catalytic and adsorption processes, 311 records) carry almost all of the claim density, with C01B (inorganic compounds, 159 records) close behind. C10L, C07C, C10G, F25J and G01N appear only in single or low double digits, marking them as thin rather than crowded. A filing strategy built around B01D/B01J alone will be competing in the most contested part of the landscape.
The named leading assignees — including ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, Asahi Kasei Corporation, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Georgia Tech Research Corporation and Ceca S.A. — each recorded zero filings in the most recent tracked year. Their position in the ranking reflects historical volume built over the 2015–2022 window rather than current filing behaviour. That gap is worth watching, since renewed activity from any of them would be a strong signal that the plateau is ending.
The lightly claimed ground sits outside the core B01D/B01J/C01B cluster: zeolite membrane integration for cold-climate direct air capture, combined liquefaction-and-adsorption trains touching F25J, sorbent regeneration tied to fuel-stream (C10L) uses, in-line adsorbent monitoring under G01N, and refinery off-gas capture under C10G. Each of these IPC overlaps shows only single-digit record counts against the roughly 400-family total, which is a reasonable proxy for under-claimed territory rather than for weak commercial interest.
Not necessarily. The most-cited records in this corpus, such as the CO2/N2/H2S removal filings and the zeolite membrane structure patent, earned their citation counts partly because they have been in the searchable record longer, giving them more time to accumulate citing art. High citation counts are a better signal of foundational influence on later drafting than of present-day commercial relevance, and should be checked against filing recency and assignee activity before being treated as a freedom-to-operate risk on their own.
Research Zeolite Catalyst Carbon Capture in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole zeolite catalyst carbon capture 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.