Additive Manufacturing Rocket Engine Patents: Who Leads 2026
- Concentrated but shallow. the ranked leader holds 9 of 26 records in scope, and the top 5 combined account for 100.0% of all 26 records — there is no long tail of outside filers left uncounted.
- Combustion hardware dominates the claims. F23R (combustion chambers) appears in 57.7% of records and B22F (powder metallurgy) in 50.0%, confirming that printed chamber and injector geometry, not generic 3D-printing process claims, is where filers are staking ground.
- Filing peaked in 2019 at 7 records. and the most recent years show no new activity in the dataset — a pattern consistent with publication lag rather than a cooled field, since recent filings are not yet published.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 26 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this patent set covers
This landscape tracks patent families at the intersection of additive manufacturing process claims and rocket engine hot-section hardware: additively manufactured injectors, nozzles and printed combustion chambers, filtered specifically to records that also address build orientation, powder removal, hot isostatic pressing, internal surface roughness, powder bed fusion or residual stress. That second filter matters — it separates general 3D-printing patents from those that actually engage with the manufacturing problems specific to printing pressure-bearing, thermally cycled engine parts.
The scope holds 26 published records dating back to 2015, with receiving-office activity split across the United States, the European Patent Office, Austria, Germany and the WIPO PCT route. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the apparent drop-off in the most recent years understates real filing activity rather than reflecting a retreat from the technology.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 26-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
A single peak year, then a lag-affected tail
Filing rose to a peak of 7 records in 2019 before tapering. With fewer than four complete post-lag years available, no reliable growth rate can be stated from this dataset — the honest read is that activity was real and concentrated around 2019, and recent-year counts are not yet final.
Combustion hardware and powder metallurgy lead the classes
F23R (combustion chambers) touches 57.7% of the 26 records and B22F (powder metallurgy) touches 50.0% — the two most-claimed subclasses by a wide margin. B33Y (additive manufacturing proper), F02K (jet and reaction propulsion) and B64G (cosmonautics and spacecraft) each cover a smaller but still material share, while B23P, B29C and B32B sit at 11.5% apiece. Since records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to well over 100% of the record total and should be read individually, not added together.
Shares are the percentage of the 26 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Additive Manufacturing of Rocket Engine Parts with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about additive manufacturing of rocket engine parts and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited filings in this set
Additive manufacture from machined surface (US10207325B2)
A method of additive manufacturing includes building a component having a top surface, attaching the component to a powder bed fusion plate that receives the component, filling the powder bed fusion chamber so the powder is flush with the top surface of the component, and adding a first layer of powdered metal level with the top surface of the component. The method also includes fusing the first layer of powdered metal to the top surface of the component to create a fusion joint, and building up an additively manufactured body from the top surface of the component in subsequent layers.Filed by Delavan Inc., granted 2019-02-19 — one of two related filings (alongside EP2957367A1) anchoring the highest-cited cluster in this dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20150360287A1 | Additive manufacture from machined surface | 27 |
| 2 | US20170059163A1 | Additively manufactured swirler mount interface for gas turbine engine combustor | 19 |
| 3 | WO2023034291A2 | Systems and methods for design, manufacture, and test of space thruster propulsion systems | 13 |
| 4 | US20240401547A1 | Systems and methods for design, manufacture, and test of space thruster propulsion systems | 9 |
| 5 | EP2957367A1 | Additive manufacture from machined surface | 9 |
| 6 | US10941944B2 | Consumable support structures for additively manufactured combustor components | 8 |
| 7 | EP3633268A1 | Additively manufactured combustor shell with consumable support structures | 5 |
| 8 | US20190344299A1 | Multi-circuit single port design in additively manufactured node | 5 |
| 9 | US20200109859A1 | Consumable support structures for additively manufactured combustor components | 4 |
| 10 | US10207325B2 | Additive manufacture from machined surface | 3 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings — treat them as a measure of influence on later filers, not of present-day 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 filing pattern signals
Reading the concentration, class mix and timing together points to a field where the hard IP is in joint geometry and post-process qualification, not in the printing step itself.
No outside long tail
Every record in this scope is attributed to one of five ranked assignees. That is unusual for an additive manufacturing category and suggests the search terms are pulling a genuinely narrow, specialist slice of the field rather than a broad commodity-process space.
Chamber geometry over generic process
The two leading IPC subclasses are combustion-chamber design and powder metallurgy, not the additive-manufacturing subclass B33Y itself (23.1%). Claims are being written around the printed part's function, with the printing method as a supporting element.
A lag-obscured recent tail
Filing peaked in 2019 and the most recent years show no counted activity. Given an 18-month typical publication lag, recent filings from later years are very likely still working through the pipeline rather than absent.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to additive manufacturing of rocket engine parts, with the prior art for and against each one.
The five ranked assignees
The assignee ranking returns five companies covering all 26 records in scope — this is the complete ranking the dataset produces, not a top-50 or top-100 cut. The leader holds 9 records; fifth place holds 2, with the remainder distributed between them.
Clear top filer
The leading assignee's 9 records represent more than a third of the entire scoped dataset, built around the additive manufacture from machined-surface family that also tops the citation table.
Even the tail is concentrated
With only five assignees covering the full 26-record scope, even the smallest ranked filer holds a meaningful 2-record position — there is no unranked long tail of single-filing outsiders in this search.
Flat recent-year counts, read with caution
All five ranked assignees show zero filings in the latest year of the dataset. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this reflects incomplete recent-year data more than an actual stop in R&D activity.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| United Technologies Corporation | 0 | — |
| Delavan Inc. | 0 | — |
| Divergent Technologies, Inc. | 0 | — |
| AGILE SPACE IND INC | 0 | — |
| Raytheon Technologies Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing and class data point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or R&D planning.
Check claim scope on the top-cited family
US10207325B2 and its EP2957367A1 counterpart anchor the highest-citation cluster in this set. Any printed-part programme using powder bed fusion plates and flush-fill build methods should map its process against these claims early.
Explore this family in EurekaWatch the under-claimed post-process branches
Internal surface roughness and powder removal from internal channels show up as supporting terms rather than as heavily claimed subclasses on their own — a gap worth testing before committing to a filing strategy.
Run a white space search in EurekaRe-check filing counts after the lag window closes
With the latest years showing no counted filings across all five ranked assignees, a follow-up pull in 12-18 months will separate genuine slowdown from publication lag.
Set a monitoring alert in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
Within this 26-record scope, one assignee leads with 9 records, roughly a third of the whole dataset. The ranking covers five assignees in total, and combined they account for 100.0% of all 26 records in scope, meaning there is no unranked long tail of outside filers in this specific search. That said, the search terms are narrow — a broader query on general aerospace additive manufacturing would likely surface more entrants.
In this dataset, claims cluster most heavily around combustion chamber design (F23R, 57.7% of records) and powder metallurgy process steps (B22F, 50.0%), rather than the additive manufacturing method alone (B33Y, 23.1%). That pattern means the strongest claims tend to combine a specific part geometry or joint design with a printing or post-processing step, not a generic 'print this part' method. Reviewing the representative filing on machined-surface additive builds is a reasonable starting point for understanding how these claims are typically structured.
The visible trend shows a peak of 7 records in 2019 followed by lower counts, including zero in the most recent year across every ranked assignee. However, patent publication typically lags actual filing by about 18 months, so recent-year figures are understated by default rather than necessarily reflecting reduced R&D activity. A meaningful growth rate cannot be computed from the available complete years, so any slowdown claim should be treated as provisional until later data confirms it.
US10207325B2, assigned to Delavan Inc. and granted in 2019, covers a method of building a component on a powder bed fusion plate, filling the bed flush with the component's top surface, then fusing and building up additional layers from that surface. It is the most-cited record in this landscape at 27 citations within the searched corpus, with a closely related European filing (EP2957367A1) also in the top-cited cluster. Its prominence suggests this powder-bed-flush-fill approach is a frequently referenced baseline method that later filings build on or design around.
Based on the IPC composition, subclasses tied to post-process qualification — internal surface roughness, powder removal from internal channels, and hot isostatic pressing scheduling — appear as supporting search terms rather than as dominant claimed classes on their own. Layered composite structures (B32B) also sit at a modest 11.5% share. These are reasonable areas to investigate for underclaimed process innovations, though a dedicated white-space search beyond this scoped dataset would be needed to confirm gaps with confidence.
Research Additive Manufacturing of Rocket Engine Parts in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole additive manufacturing of rocket engine parts 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.