Acrylic Foam Structural Tapes Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- 57.1% concentration. The top 5 of 23 ranked assignees hold 28 of the 49 records in scope — over half the field sits with a small group of filers.
- Filing has flattened, not grown. Activity peaked at 10 records in 2020; the 2022 midpoint sits at 4, and the trend since reads flat-to-declining rather than expanding.
- China leads by receiving office. 16 of the tracked filings entered via China, ahead of Europe (10) and the United States (6), pointing to where enforcement and freedom-to-operate checks matter most.
What the acrylic foam structural tape patent record shows
Acrylic foam structural tapes sit at the intersection of adhesive chemistry and mechanical joint design: a foam-backed pressure-sensitive adhesive engineered to replace welds, rivets or liquid adhesives in structural bonding. The patent record in scope — 49 published records spanning 2015 to 2026 — is dominated by C09J adhesive classifications, with secondary claim activity in polymer chemistry, layered laminates and vehicle fittings. This is a mature, narrow field rather than a broad emerging one: filing volume has never been large, and the trend since its 2020 peak has softened.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent year in the trend understates real activity — 2026 in particular should be read as incomplete rather than as a drop-off. Even so, the shape of the curve from 2020 to the 2022 midpoint is informative: this is not a technology in a growth phase, it is one where claim space was staked out earlier and has since been defended or left alone.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 49 records: how filing volume moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend: flat after a 2020 peak
Volume rose to a peak of 10 records in 2020, then eased back; by the 2022 midpoint filings had fallen to 4, and the pattern since is flat or declining rather than resuming growth. Read the final year or two as undercounted given publication lag.
IPC composition: adhesives dominate, chemistry and laminates trail
C09J (adhesives) appears in 73.5% of the 49 records, far ahead of C08F addition-polymer chemistry (18.4%) and B32B layered products (14.3%). Smaller shares in G03F, H05B, B60J, C08K and C08L mark where structural tape claims intersect photolithographic masking, heating elements, vehicle glazing and additive/compounding work — each under 10.2% of records and each a narrower niche rather than a core claim area.
Shares are the percentage of the 49 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Acrylic Foam Structural Tapes with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about acrylic foam structural tapes and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this dataset
EP2757135A1 — Method of adhering a part to a vehicle with an acrylic foam tape
The filing covers a method of bonding a part to a painted vehicle surface using a foam-core tape with a thermally cross-linked acrylic polymer, pressure-sensitive adhesive on one face and a further adhesive on the other, applied after priming the painted surface with a film-forming polymer or coupling-agent solution in an organic solvent.Filed by 3M Innovative Properties Company, 2014-07-23.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20020182955A1 | Structural bonding tapes and articles containing the same | 189 |
| 2 | US20100050553A1 | Sandwich panel joint and method of joining sandwich panels | 25 |
| 3 | US20080160242A1 | Double sided acrylic adhesive tapes and their usage | 21 |
| 4 | CN1531580A | 结构粘合带以及包含它的制件 | 20 |
| 5 | CN106674417A | 一种亚克力泡棉胶带组合物及制备该亚克力泡棉胶带的方法 | 16 |
| 6 | US5786761A | Gate opening alarm with resetting disable means | 13 |
| 7 | CN112745771A | 一种丙烯酸酯泡棉胶带及其制备方法 | 9 |
| 8 | EP2746356A1 | Adhesive tape roll, its method of manufacture and its use for making weatherseal strips | 8 |
| 9 | WO2002079337A1 | Structural bonding tapes and articles containing the same | 7 |
| 10 | KR1020110001119A | Acrylic form tape and manufacturing method of the same | 6 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply by virtue of longer exposure; treat them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not a ranking of current commercial 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 from the dataset that change how a freedom-to-operate or white-space search in this field should be scoped.
The field is top-heavy, not fragmented
With the leader alone holding 14 records and the top 5 combined accounting for more than half the corpus, a competitive clearance search in this space should start with the ranked leaders' portfolios rather than treat the field as evenly distributed among many small filers.
Activity has cooled since 2020
The absence of renewed growth after the 2020 peak suggests the core structural-bonding claim space was staked out early and has not attracted a fresh wave of filers since — a pattern more consistent with a settled field than an emerging one.
China is the primary filing venue
China's receiving-office count leads Europe and the United States by a clear margin, with WIPO/PCT, India and South Korea trailing further behind — a signal for where enforcement risk and local prior art should be checked first.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to acrylic foam structural tapes, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where it thins out
The ranked assignee list covers 23 companies across the 49 records in scope — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, the complete set the data endpoint returns for this search.
One filer sets the pace
The leading assignee's 14 records make it the clear reference point for prior art on structural bonding tape methods and formulations; any new filing in the core adhesive-tape claim area should be checked against this portfolio first.
A shallow drop after the leader
Fifth place holds 2 records and tenth place also holds 2 — the gap between the top of the ranking and the mid-field is shallow, meaning several assignees hold comparable, modest-sized portfolios rather than one runner-up chasing the leader.
Co-filing is rare
Only two co-assignee pairs appear in the corpus, indicating that most filings in this space are pursued independently rather than through joint development or licensing partnerships.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| 3M Innovative Properties Company | 0 | — |
| Scapa Tapes North America | 0 | — |
| AGC Automotive Americas Co. | 0 | — |
| Jiangsu Jinghua New Materials Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Shenzhen Hongzheng Adhesive Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| TMS Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Anhui Fuyin New Materials Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| PRS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
The dataset points to specific next checks rather than a single conclusion.
Clear the leader's portfolio first
Before filing in the core adhesive-tape claim area, run a detailed clearance against the leading assignee's 14 records, since this is the single largest concentration of prior art in scope.
Search the leader's filingsCheck China-first for enforcement risk
With 16 of the tracked filings entering via China against 10 in Europe and 6 in the US, local prior art and enforcement exposure in China deserve first attention for any commercialisation plan.
Review China filingsScope claims around the under-claimed branches
The smaller IPC classes — heated debonding, low-surface-energy primers, glazing bonding without fasteners — carry single-digit record counts and are where a narrowly drafted first claim has the best chance of standing clear of dense prior art.
Explore white spaceCommon questions about acrylic foam structural tape patents
The dataset used for this landscape contains 49 published records spanning 2015 to 2026, drawn from a search combining acrylic foam tape, structural bonding tape and double-sided foam tape terms with claim-level language on shear holding, conformability, temperature, humidity aging and primer use. This is a narrow, specialist field rather than a broad one, and the ranked assignee list covers 23 companies across those records. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true count for the most recent year or two will be higher once further applications publish.
Filing is concentrated: the top 5 of 23 ranked assignees hold 28 of the 49 records in scope, or 57.1% of the field, and the leading single filer alone accounts for 14 records. The drop from the leader to the mid-field is shallow, with fifth and tenth place each holding 2 records, meaning several companies hold comparable smaller portfolios below the top filer. A freedom-to-operate check in this space should prioritise the leading assignee's claims before broadening to the rest of the ranked list.
The trend has flattened rather than grown. Filing peaked at 10 records in 2020, fell to 4 at the 2022 midpoint, and has not resumed growth since. Recent-year momentum figures for the tracked leading assignees show 0 filings in the latest year across the names checked, though this should be read alongside the roughly 18-month publication lag rather than as a hard stop in activity.
EP2757135A1, filed by 3M Innovative Properties Company in 2014, claims a method of adhering a part to a painted vehicle surface using a foam-core tape with a thermally cross-linked acrylic polymer, a pressure-sensitive adhesive on one face and a further adhesive on the other, applied after priming the painted surface with a film-forming polymer or coupling-agent solution. It is a representative example of the method-level claims that dominate this field: the claim scope sits on the priming and application sequence as much as on the tape composition itself, which is what makes this style of claim relevant to anyone designing an installation process rather than just a tape formulation.
The smaller IPC classes point to under-claimed territory: G03F photolithography crossover, H05B heated-tape debonding, B60J vehicle glazing bonding and C08K additive packages for humidity-aged shear retention each appear in 10.2% or fewer of the 49 records. These are narrower branches than the core C09J adhesive claims that cover 73.5% of records, and a narrowly drafted claim in one of them has more room to stand clear of dense prior art than a claim written directly against core adhesive composition or shear-holding performance.
Research Acrylic Foam Structural Tapes in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole acrylic foam structural tapes 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.