Additive Manufacturing Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- Filing has cooled from its 2018 peak of 1,457 records, with the 2021→2024 span down 39% (1,202 to 739) — though 2025 onward is still filling in as publication lags filing.
- The top 5 assignees hold 18.0% of all 12,769 records, and the top 10 hold 25.0% — concentrated, but with a long tail of single-digit filers behind them.
- B33Y and B29C each touch roughly half of all records, showing that plastics-shaping process claims and core additive-manufacturing claims overlap on the same filings rather than sitting in separate silos.
Filing growth compares 2021 (1,202 records) with 2024 (739) — 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 12,769 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the additive manufacturing patent record actually shows
The search set covers 12,769 published records filed against additive manufacturing process terms — process temperature, tool geometry, material feed, dimensional tolerance, tool path — rather than the broader 3D-printing literature as a whole. That framing matters: it pulls in process-control and metrology claims alongside the machines themselves, which is why control-systems and data-processing subclasses show up at meaningful share alongside the core additive-manufacturing and plastics-shaping classes.
Filing volume peaked in 2018 and has since declined through the most recent complete year, 2024. The most recent one or two years in any such trend will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be, because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months — so the apparent 2025-26 drop-off is partly an artefact of the data cut-off, not necessarily a slowdown in filing activity 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
Two views of the same 12,769-record set: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density today.
A 2018 peak followed by a multi-year pullback
Annual filings ran from 1,223 in 2017 to a peak of 1,457 in 2018, then eased across the following years to 112 in 2026 (a partial year). The clearest complete-year comparison in the data is 2021 to 2024, where filings fell 39% (1,202 to 739) — a real contraction, but one that predates any read on 2025-26, which are still filling in.
Core additive claims sit alongside plastics-shaping and control-systems classes
B33Y (additive manufacturing / 3D printing) appears on 50.0% of the 12,769 records and B29C (shaping of plastics) on 45.4% — the two largest classes overlap heavily rather than partition the field. B22F (powder metallurgy) follows at 24.6%, with B23K (welding, soldering & brazing) at 11.2% and G05B (control & regulating systems) at 9.6%, showing that a meaningful slice of the corpus is about controlling the process, not just describing the build.
Shares are the percentage of the 12,769 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Additive Manufacturing Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about additive manufacturing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative claim: tool-path generation for additive manufacturing
Method for generating a tool path for additive manufacturing of a workpiece
The claim covers generating a tool path for an application tool used in additive manufacturing — specifically buildup welding — of a substantially rotationally symmetric workpiece, built from cross-sectional contour data and axis data describing the workpiece's rotation axis.Filed by OPEN MIND TECHNOLOGIES AG; published 2023-03-02 as US20230060941A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20100137990A1 | Porous Substrates for Implantation | 1,118 |
| 2 | US9205601B2 | Continuous liquid interphase printing | 779 |
| 3 | US20140291886A1 | Three dimensional printing | 750 |
| 4 | US20200348662A1 | Platform for facilitating development of intelligence in an industrial internet of things system | 733 |
| 5 | US20210157312A1 | Intelligent vibration digital twin systems and methods for industrial environments | 716 |
| 6 | US9216546B2 | Method and apparatus for three-dimensional fabrication with feed through carrier | 621 |
| 7 | US9211678B2 | Method and apparatus for three-dimensional fabrication | 610 |
| 8 | US9453142B2 | Polyurethane resins having multiple mechanisms of hardening for use in producing three-dimensional objects | 603 |
| 9 | US9815118B1 | Fabricating multi-part assemblies | 600 |
| 10 | US20170032281A1 | System and Method to Facilitate Welding Software as a Service | 576 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations inside this searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence, not of current technical importance.
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 patterns worth acting on: where claim density already sits, how concentrated ownership is, and what the recent momentum data does and does not tell you.
Ownership is concentrated but not locked up
The top 5 assignees combined account for 18.0% of all records in scope, and the top 10 for 25.0%. That leaves three-quarters of the corpus held outside the ranked leaders — a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants rather than a market fully staked out by a handful of firms.
Control and data-processing claims are a real sub-market
G05B (control & regulating systems) and G06F (electric digital data processing) touch 9.6% and 7.3% of records respectively. That is a smaller share than the core printing classes, but it signals that process-parameter and tool-path software claims are being filed as a distinct layer on top of the hardware.
Read recent-year drops with the publication lag in mind
Filings fell from 1,202 in 2021 to 739 in 2024, a genuine three-year decline. The sharper-looking falls reported for individual assignees in 2025-26 reflect the same 18-month publication lag rather than an abrupt stop in filing activity, so they should not be read as the current run rate.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to additive manufacturing patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Leaders, collaboration patterns and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders span industrial equipment makers, materials suppliers and software-focused entrants — but the co-filing pattern and recent-year momentum both point to a field still being actively reshuffled rather than settled.
One clear leader, then a steep drop to a broad group
The leading assignee holds 666 records, more than double the fifth-place figure of 312 and over four times the tenth-place figure of 159. The gap from first to fifth is steep; the gap from fifth to tenth is comparatively shallow, which is the shape of a field with one dominant filer and a broad second tier.
Co-filing is rare and concentrated in a few pairs
Only 10 recurring co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, the strongest at 11 shared records. Most of these pairs sit inside corporate groups (parent and subsidiary, or two divisions of the same company) rather than across competitors, so they say more about internal structure than about industry-wide alliances.
Leading filers show sharp year-over-year drops
Every one of the assignees tracked for recent-year momentum shows a steep decline into the latest year, several down to zero. Given the 18-month publication lag, this is expected for the most recent filing years and should not be read as those companies exiting the space — it is the data catching up, not a market signal.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| General Electric Co | 2 | -82% |
| Seurat Technologies Inc | 1 | -83% |
| Align Technology Inc | 1 | -96% |
| Stratasys Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Carbon Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Markforged Inc | 0 | — |
| Xerox Corp | 0 | -100% |
| Haldor Topsoe AS | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
The dataset points to three practical next steps depending on whether you are scoping freedom-to-operate, deciding where to file, or tracking a competitor.
Check freedom-to-operate against the densest classes
B33Y and B29C together sit on nearly half the corpus each, so any new filing touching core additive process or plastics-shaping claims needs a targeted prior-art search in those two subclasses before drafting.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in EurekaDraft into the thinner control-systems layer
G05B and G06F carry lower density than the hardware classes, and process-parameter or tool-path software claims are still being actively filed there — a narrower window than the core classes, but a real one.
Explore the control-layer white space in EurekaTrack the leader's next moves, not just its stock
With one assignee holding 666 records against a fifth-place figure of 312, watching that leader's continuation filings and recent applications tells you more about where the field moves next than the aggregate trend does.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaCommon questions on additive manufacturing patents
One assignee leads the ranked field with 666 records, well ahead of the fifth-place company at 312 and tenth place at 159. The gap between first and fifth is steep, but the gap from fifth to tenth is much shallower, meaning the field has one dominant filer sitting above a broad second tier rather than a handful of firms bunched at the top. The ranking covers 100 companies in total, so this leader still accounts for a small fraction of the 12,769 records in scope.
Filing peaked in 2018 at 1,457 records and has declined since, with the most reliable complete-year comparison — 2021 to 2024 — showing a 39% drop, from 1,202 to 739. Years after 2024 should not be read as confirming a further slowdown, because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and will rise as more records publish. The honest read is a real multi-year contraction through 2024, with the most recent period genuinely unknown yet.
The two largest IPC subclasses are B33Y (additive manufacturing / 3D printing specifically), covering 50.0% of the 12,769 records, and B29C (shaping of plastics), covering 45.4%. B22F (powder metallurgy) follows at 24.6%, and smaller but notable shares sit in B23K (welding, soldering and brazing) at 11.2% and G05B (control and regulating systems) at 9.6%. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be summed into a total.
The top 5 assignees combined hold 18.0% of all 12,769 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 25.0%. That leaves three-quarters of the corpus outside the ranked leaders, spread across a long tail of companies with far fewer filings each. It is a concentrated-at-the-top field, but not one where a small group has locked up the majority of the claim space.
The thinner IPC classes relative to the two dominant ones point to under-claimed territory: control and regulating systems (G05B, 9.6% of records) and digital data processing (G06F, 7.3%) carry meaningful but comparatively low density next to the roughly 50% shares held by B33Y and B29C. Specific branches worth checking include in-process dimensional tolerance feedback, material feed rate control for multi-material builds, and closed-loop tool-path correction during buildup welding — all present in the corpus but not saturated. A proper freedom-to-operate search in the relevant subclass is still the right first step before assuming any of these are open.
US20230060941A1, filed by Open Mind Technologies AG and published 2023-03-02, claims a method for generating a tool path for an application tool used in additive manufacturing — specifically buildup welding — of a substantially rotationally symmetric workpiece, built from cross-sectional contour data and rotation-axis data. It is narrow to that specific geometry and welding-based build process, so it constrains rotationally-symmetric, buildup-welding tool-path generation methods that match its specific data inputs, not additive manufacturing tool-path generation broadly. Anyone working on tool-path generation for non-rotationally-symmetric parts, or using different input data structures, sits outside this claim's literal scope, though a full clearance search should confirm that against the specific claim language.
Research Additive Manufacturing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole additive manufacturing patent landscape 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.