Abrasive Waterjet Cutting Patents: Who Leads, Trends 2026
- 65.4% of all 107 records sit with just five assignees, and 86.9% with ten — a narrow group of filers has occupied most of the core claim space.
- Filing accelerated after a quiet 2022 with the trend climbing back up from that midpoint low, even as the most recent year is still undercounted due to publication lag.
- B24C abrasive blasting appears in 89.7% of records while control-software classes like G05B and G06F show up in over a third — cutting mechanics and process control are now filed together, not separately.
What the abrasive waterjet cutting patent record shows
Abrasive waterjet cutting patents in this dataset span nozzle and consumable design, cutting-path control software, and process parameters for materials ranging from composites to ceramics. The search covers 107 published records filed against kerf taper, abrasive consumption, cutting speed, delamination and nozzle wear — the practical failure modes that separate a workable system from a lab demonstration. Most of that activity clusters in a handful of IPC subclasses, with B24C abrasive blasting as the anchor class across nearly nine in ten records.
Filing offices skew heavily toward the United States, followed by Europe and PCT applications, which tracks with where the largest waterjet equipment makers are headquartered and where composite and ceramic cutting demand is concentrated. The filing trend dipped through the middle of the coverage window before picking back up, a pattern worth reading carefully given the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication that always understates the most recent year.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 107 records: how filing activity moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings peaked in 2018 at 19 records, fell toward a midpoint low in 2022, and have been climbing since — though the final year or two of any patent trend is always undercounted because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months.
IPC subclass composition
B24C (abrasive blasting) anchors 89.7% of records, with G05B (control and regulating systems) and G06F (electric digital data processing) each appearing in over a quarter of filings — evidence that cutting hardware and path-control software are increasingly claimed in the same families rather than separately. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100% of the 107 records in scope.
Shares are the percentage of the 107 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Abrasive Waterjet Cutting with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about abrasive waterjet cutting and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Arrangement and method for empirically determining an efficiency index in abrasive waterjet cutting
An arrangement of devices for determining an efficiency index in abrasive waterjet cutting — the index unambiguously defining, for a given material, the shape of a cut, the roughness of surfaces created by cutting, and their conical nature depending on the incidence angle of the abrasive waterjet. The arrangement combines a known abrasive waterjet cutting machine, a thermographic camera and a computer, with fixed and variable process parameters known in advance: hydraulic, cutting, mixing, abrasive and workpiece input parameters.Filed by Univerza v Ljubljani; the record and filing date are shown alongside this entry.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4966059A | Apparatus and process for high speed waterjet cutting of extensible sheeting | 49 |
| 2 | US9727051B2 | Generating optimized tool paths and machine commands for beam cutting tools | 33 |
| 3 | US9658613B2 | Generating optimized tool paths and machine commands for beam cutting tools | 33 |
| 4 | EP0810038A2 | Quick change nozzle assembly for waterjet cutting | 32 |
| 5 | US9720399B2 | Generating optimized tool paths and machine commands for beam cutting tools | 30 |
| 6 | US20190101894A1 | Generating optimized tool paths and machine commands for beam cutting tools | 29 |
| 7 | EP0360567A2 | High hardness, wear resistant materials | 29 |
| 8 | US9772620B2 | Generating optimized tool paths and machine commands for beam cutting tools | 26 |
| 9 | US9003936B2 | Waterjet cutting system with standoff distance control | 26 |
| 10 | US10146209B2 | Generating optimized tool paths and machine commands for beam cutting tools | 24 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence, not 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 concentration and composition mean for filing strategy
The numbers point to a field where a small group of firms occupies the core mechanical claims while control-software claiming is still spreading.
The core is already claimed by a few filers
With the leading assignee alone holding 26 records and the next four filling out the top five, new entrants attempting core nozzle or abrasive-metering claims are filing into dense prior art held by a small group. The gap to fifth place (7 records) versus tenth (3 records) shows the concentration is steep, not gradual.
Activity dipped mid-window, then re-accelerated
The trend fell to a documented midpoint of zero in 2022 before climbing again, suggesting a pause in core mechanical filing followed by a fresh wave — likely tied to control-software and multi-axis path claims rather than a repeat of earlier nozzle-design filings.
Software claims are catching up to hardware claims
Over a third of records carry a control-systems classification and nearly a quarter carry electric digital data processing codes, alongside the 89.7% baseline in abrasive blasting. That combination signals that toolpath optimisation and adaptive cutting-parameter control are now routinely bundled into the same filings as nozzle and abrasive-delivery hardware.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to abrasive waterjet cutting, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where it's still open
Thirty-three companies make up the entire ranked list this dataset returns — not a curated top-50 — and the drop-off after the leading names is sharp.
One filer holds roughly a quarter of the corpus alone
The leading assignee's 26 records compare with 7 at fifth place and 3 at tenth, meaning the distance between first and fifth is far steeper than fifth to tenth. That shape is typical of an equipment maker with a long-running consumables and nozzle-design program rather than a recent entrant.
Most filers appear once or twice
Beyond the top ten, which together hold 86.9% of the 107 records, the remaining ranked assignees each contribute a small number of filings. That long tail includes university and single-inventor filings rather than repeat corporate programs.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet for named leaders
Several of the most active historical filers, including the top-ranked assignee, show zero filings in the latest tracked year, with one showing a -100% year-on-year change. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this likely reflects reporting delay rather than an actual halt in R&D.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| OMAX CORP | 0 | — |
| Flow International Corp | 0 | -100% |
| MILLER PAUL L | 0 | — |
| The Dow Chemical Company | 0 | — |
| University of Luxembourg | 0 | — |
| NEW WORLD STONEWORKS LLC | 0 | — |
| First Brands Corp | 0 | — |
| Ingersoll Rand Company | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with a concentrated top and open branches in software-adjacent claims. The next step is checking a specific claim idea against this same prior art.
Test a claim against the top five
Run a candidate nozzle-wear or abrasive-metering claim against the filings held by the leading assignees to see how much room is left before it reads on prior art.
Explore in Eureka →Track the control-software overlap
Follow how G05B and G06F classifications are being combined with B24C hardware claims to spot which control approaches are becoming standard versus proprietary.
Explore in Eureka →Watch for the 2025–2026 publication catch-up
Recent-year filings are understated by design; revisit the trend line once the current filing cohort has had time to publish.
Explore in Eureka →Common questions about abrasive waterjet cutting patents
One assignee leads this dataset with 26 of the 107 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-ranked assignee at 7 records. That gap indicates a long-running, concentrated filing program rather than a recent surge by a single company. The ranked list covers 33 assignees in total, so most companies in the field hold only a handful of filings each, and the long tail includes universities and individual inventors alongside equipment makers.
Filing peaked at 19 records in 2018, fell to a documented low at the 2022 midpoint, and has been climbing since. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years in any trend chart will understate true filing activity, so the apparent slowdown at the very end of the window should not be read as a real decline yet.
Abrasive blasting, classified under IPC B24C, appears in 89.7% of the 107 records and is the clear anchor class. Control and regulating systems (G05B) and electric digital data processing (G06F) follow, each appearing in roughly a quarter to a third of records, showing that toolpath optimisation and adaptive control software are now commonly claimed alongside the cutting hardware itself rather than filed separately.
Classes tied to spraying and atomising (B05B), machine tool fittings (B23Q), cutting machines (B26D) and ceramics processing (C04B) each appear in under 11% of the 107 records, meaning they are claimed far less densely than the core B24C and G05B territory. Specific sub-areas such as real-time abrasive flow metering, nozzle-wear compensation and ceramic-specific cutting parameters look thinly claimed relative to the overall filing volume, which is worth verifying against the full record set before committing to a filing strategy there.
The United States receives the largest share of filings at 52 records, followed by the European Patent Office at 23 and PCT/WIPO filings at 8. Australia, Canada and Germany each account for single-digit numbers of records. This distribution tracks closely with where major waterjet equipment manufacturers and heavy composite or stone-cutting industries are based.
Research Abrasive Waterjet Cutting in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole abrasive waterjet cutting 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.