Alloy Design Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 11.4% of 5,642 records sit with the top five assignees combined — concentrated enough to matter, but far from a closed field.
- C22C alloys dominates composition at 27.6% of records, with casting, powder metallurgy, coating and heat treatment each in the 6-10% range and rarely overlapping cleanly.
- Filing cooled from 2021 to 2024 down 31% over that span (197 to 136), though 2025-26 figures are still filling in under normal publication lag.
Filing growth compares 2021 (197 records) with 2024 (136) — 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 5,642 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 5,642 published records filed against alloy design and metal processing claims — spanning composition control, casting, powder metallurgy, surface coating, heat treatment and welding/joining. The search string pairs alloy and processing terms with mechanism language (material phase, grain structure, particle morphology, mechanical strength, metal melt, surface layer), so the corpus favours records that describe how a metal is transformed rather than just what it is made of.
Filing activity peaked in 2019 at 263 records and has since eased, with the 2021-2024 window down 31% — a genuine cooling, not a data artefact, though the newest years always understate true filing volume because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 5,642 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A field past its filing peak, not past its relevance
Filings rose to a 2019 peak of 263, then eased; the leader's 179 records and the top five's combined 641 (11.4% of all records in scope) show real concentration without a monopoly. Reading 2025-26 as decline would be premature given publication lag.
Composition claims still carry the field
C22C (alloys) touches 27.6% of records, well ahead of casting (B22D, 9.7%), powder metallurgy (B22F, 7.0%), coating (C23C, 6.7%) and heat treatment (C21D, 6.4%). Because records carry multiple classes, these shares overlap rather than sum to a whole.
Shares are the percentage of the 5,642 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Alloy Design & Processing Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about alloy design & processing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaWhat the most-cited and most-recent filings reveal
Metal processing and forming system and metal processing and forming method
A metal processing and forming system and method for forming a workpiece on a workbench: a forming device produces an initial melt of metallic material along a processing path, a shaping device shapes that melt before it solidifies, and a control device synchronises the two. The claim sits at the intersection of melt-forming and in-process shaping control.Filed by Industrial Technology Research Institute, published 2025-07-03 — illustrates how process-control claims are now layering onto established melt-forming mechanics rather than replacing them.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4721533A | Protective structure for an immersion pyrometer | 543 |
| 2 | US4749416A | Immersion pyrometer with protective structure for sidewall use | 518 |
| 3 | US20140202386A1 | Substrate processing apparatus and susceptor | 502 |
| 4 | US20140163717A1 | Systems and methods for additive manufacturing and repair of metal components | 457 |
| 5 | WO1999064638A1 | Removal of oxygen from metal oxides and solid solutions by electrolysis in a fused salt | 432 |
| 6 | US4721534A | Immersion pyrometer | 398 |
| 7 | US7011154B2 | In situ recovery from a kerogen and liquid hydrocarbon containing formation | 383 |
| 8 | US6782947B2 | In situ thermal processing of a relatively impermeable formation to increase permeability of the formation | 364 |
| 9 | US20060032175A1 | Flooring products and methods of making the same | 363 |
| 10 | US7077199B2 | In situ thermal processing of an oil reservoir formation | 356 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — read them as markers of influence on the field, not as evidence that the newest claims matter less.
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 data means for filing strategy
Three read-throughs from the concentration, composition and citation figures above.
Leadership is real but not a chokehold
The top five assignees combined hold 11.4% of the 5,642 records in scope, and the top ten hold 18.7%. That leaves the large majority of filing activity spread across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants — room to build a position without immediately colliding with an incumbent's core claims.
Composition claims outnumber any single process route
C22C alloy-composition claims appear in 27.6% of records, more than double the next subclass. Casting, powder metallurgy, coating and heat treatment each sit in a tighter 6-10% band, suggesting composition is still the most contested layer while individual process routes remain comparatively open.
Filing has cooled from its 2019 peak
Volume ran from 197 records in 2021 down to 136 in 2024, a 31% contraction over the only span that can be read as complete. Several named leaders show flat or falling year-over-year momentum, consistent with a field consolidating around established claims rather than one still in a land-grab phase.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to alloy design & processing patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The assignee landscape
A ranked field of 100 companies, led by a diversified industrial and materials group, with meaningful volume from steelmakers, semiconductor-equipment and energy-adjacent filers.
One clear leader, no runaway gap
The top-ranked assignee holds 179 records against a fifth-place figure of 110 and a tenth-place figure of 63 — a gradual taper rather than a cliff, meaning several organisations hold meaningfully sized portfolios rather than one dominant filer and scattered also-rans.
Co-filing is rare and concentrated
Only ten co-assignee pairings appear across the ranked set, the strongest tied to a steelmaker-and-upstream-research pairing. Most filers here protect alloy and processing claims independently rather than through joint ventures, which raises the value of licensing-in over co-development for newcomers.
Several established filers have gone quiet
Multiple ranked assignees show zero filings in the latest tracked year, with year-over-year drops as steep as -100% for some historically active names. That does not necessarily mean retreat from the technology — it is consistent with publication lag masking filings still working through the pipeline.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon Technology Holdings LLC | 3 | -40% |
| HRL Laboratories LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Canon Inc. | 0 | — |
| Shell Oil Company | 0 | — |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| Nippon Steel Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Southwire Company LLC | 0 | — |
| Baker Hughes Holdings LLC | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The figures above describe the field as filed; turning them into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going claim-by-claim.
Map claim scope against your own process route
Composition claims (C22C) and process claims (casting, powder metallurgy, coating, heat treatment) are filed largely independently in this dataset — a new filing that combines a specific composition with a specific process step may sit outside existing claim boundaries even in a dense subclass.
Explore claim scope in EurekaTrack the quiet incumbents before they re-file
Several top-ranked assignees show flat or negative year-over-year momentum, which given publication lag may reflect filings still in the pipeline rather than genuine withdrawal — worth monitoring rather than assuming the space has opened up.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on alloy design patenting
The leading assignee in this dataset holds 179 records, ahead of a fifth-place figure of 110 and a tenth-place figure of 63 — a gradual taper rather than one company running away with the field. The top five combined account for 11.4% of all 5,642 records in scope, and the top ten for 18.7%, which leaves most of the field distributed across a long tail of smaller filers. That structure means a new entrant is unlikely to face a single blocking incumbent across the whole space, but should check specific composition and process claims against whichever leader is active in their exact sub-area.
Filing peaked in 2019 at 263 records and has cooled since, with the only complete-year comparison available — 2021 to 2024 — showing a 31% decline from 197 to 136 records. That is a real contraction, not just a data artefact. However, figures for 2025 and 2026 should not be read as continuing the decline, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months and those years are still filling in.
Alloy composition claims under IPC class C22C are the largest single category, appearing in 27.6% of the 5,642 records in scope — more than double the next largest subclass. Metal casting (B22D, 9.7%), powder metallurgy (B22F, 7.0%), coating and surface deposition (C23C, 6.7%) and heat treatment (C21D, 6.4%) each occupy a narrower band. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these figures overlap rather than sum to 100%, and composition claims frequently coexist with a process claim in the same filing.
The clearest gaps sit in specific process-control niches rather than in alloy composition generally: in-process melt shaping control, particle morphology control within powder metallurgy, surface layer adhesion for coated alloys, and grain structure control during heat treatment all show comparatively thinner filing density than the core C22C composition claims. A workable first claim in these areas typically pairs a named process step with a measurable structural outcome — for example, a specific shaping sequence tied to a defined grain structure result — rather than claiming the composition alone, which is where existing filings are thickest.
It is concentrated at the top but not closed. The top five assignees hold 11.4% of the 5,642 records in scope and the top ten hold 18.7%, out of a ranked field of 100 companies. That leaves over 80% of filing activity distributed across the remaining ranked assignees and unranked filers, which is a meaningfully open structure compared with fields where a handful of firms hold a majority share.
Research Alloy Design & Processing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole alloy design & processing 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.