Casting Process Patents: Who Leads, Where Filings Are Cooling 2026
- Filing has cooled sharply since its 2017 peak of 29 records down to single digits by the most recent full year, suggesting the core claim space around gating design and mold material is largely staked out rather than still forming.
- B22C foundry moulding dominates at 249 of 260 records while B33Y additive manufacturing appears in only 34, marking the clearest gap between traditional casting claims and 3D-printed pattern or mold techniques.
- The United States receives 105 filings versus 50 for China an unusually US-weighted distribution for a metals process technology, with co-assignee filing patterns pointing to concentrated activity among a handful of turbine and aerospace-linked entities.
Filing growth compares 2021 (6 records) with 2024 (11) — 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 260 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent families addressing metal casting process control and solidification, spanning investment casting, gating design, mold material selection and shrinkage-porosity mitigation. The search combines title/abstract terms for casting process and solidification control with claim-level language on shrinkage porosity, gating design, grain refinement, mold material and filling simulation, restricted to the core foundry-moulding and metal-casting IPC classes (B22C9, B22D27, B22D21). The result is a dataset of 260 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 and has declined toward the present, a pattern consistent with a technology area where the foundational claim territory in gating and mold design was staked out earlier in the window. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years in any trend chart will understate true filing volume, but the multi-year downward slope predates that lag effect and looks structural rather than a data artefact.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 260-family dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the records actually sit in.
A peak-and-decline filing curve
Filings ran at 29 in 2017, roughly halved by the 2022 midpoint to 11, and continued down toward single digits into 2026. That shape is more consistent with a mature, previously well-claimed process area than with an emerging one — new entrants now have less unclaimed core territory in gating and mold-material design than they would have had a decade ago.
Foundry moulding dominates; additive manufacturing overlap is thin
B22C (foundry moulding) appears in 249 of 260 records and B22D (metal casting) in 91, confirming this is a core casting dataset. The smaller counts in B33Y (34, additive manufacturing), F01D and F02C (29 and 14, turbine components) and B29C/B28B/C04B (plastics, cement and ceramics shaping, 24/18/16) mark where casting process claims intersect adjacent fields — and where the overlap with 3D-printed patterns and mold cores is proportionally the least developed.
Shares are the percentage of the 260 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Casting Process and Solidification Control with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about casting process and solidification control and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe patents other filings build on
Methods and systems for improving a surface finish of an investment casting
Methods of improving a surface finish of a casting pattern for an investment casting process, methods of forming an investment casting, and smoothed casting patterns. The methods for forming the casting patterns having an improved surface finish include sealing the casting pattern with a first coating material to form a sealed casting pattern and smoothing the sealed casting pattern with a second coating material to form a smoothed casting pattern. The methods for forming the investment casting include covering a smoothed casting pattern with a mold material to define an enclosed mold volume, curing the mold material to form a cured mold material, flowing the smoothed casting pattern from the enclosed mold volume, and casting a molten material within the enclosed mold volume.Filed by The Boeing Company, published 2021-03-09 (US10940531B1).
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4844144A | Investment casting utilizing patterns produced by stereolithography | 208 |
| 2 | US6626230B1 | Multi-wall core and process | 134 |
| 3 | US5108435A | Cast bone ingrowth surface | 119 |
| 4 | US5297615A | Complaint investment casting mold and method | 67 |
| 5 | US20110132563A1 | Investment casting process for hollow components | 63 |
| 6 | US5618633A | Honeycomb casting | 63 |
| 7 | US20180161856A1 | Integrated casting core-shell structure and filter for making cast component | 59 |
| 8 | US3933190A | Method for fabricating shell molds for the production of superalloy castings | 57 |
| 9 | US4164424A | Alumina core having a high degree of porosity and crushability characteristics | 52 |
| 10 | US9387533B1 | Systems, devices, and methods involving precision component castings | 45 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to be cited within this corpus — read them as a measure of foundational influence, not 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 numbers signal for filing strategy
Four read-outs from the trend, classification and citation data that matter more than the raw counts on their own.
The core process has stopped generating new filings
From a 2017 peak of 29 records, filing volume has fallen toward single digits, with 2022 sitting at the roughly halfway point of 11. Even allowing for publication lag understating the last year or two, the multi-year direction is down, not flat.
This is a foundry-moulding dataset first, everything else second
B22C outweighs every other subclass by a wide margin, with B22D a distant second at 91. The smaller subclasses — B33Y, F01D, B29C, B28B, C04B, F02C — mark adjacent fields where casting-process claims occasionally cross into additive manufacturing, turbine components and ceramics, but none approaches core-subclass density.
Filing is US-weighted relative to typical metals datasets
The United States receives more than double the filings of China in this dataset, with Europe, WIPO/PCT, Japan and Canada trailing further behind. That distribution points to an aerospace- and turbine-manufacturing-driven filer base rather than a broad industrial-casting one.
A small number of older patents anchor the field
The most-cited record, on stereolithography-produced investment casting patterns, sits well ahead of the next most-cited filings. Heavy citation of decades-old records is typical of a settled field where newer filings build narrow improvements on established mold and pattern techniques rather than replacing them.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to casting process and solidification control, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where momentum has stalled
Recent-year filing counts for the tracked assignees all read zero in the latest year, consistent with the broader decline in the trend data — this is a field where established positions matter more than new activity.
Established players, but no fresh filings in the most recent year
General Electric, United Technologies, Hamilton Sundstrand Research (Howmet Research) and Siemens Energy US all show zero filings in the latest tracked year. Given the 18-month publication lag, some of this is timing, but the trend line's multi-year decline suggests it is also a genuine slowdown in new claim activity from this group.
Filing activity concentrates in a few collaborative pairs
The strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset links a systems firm with Siemens Energy US at 13 joint filings, well ahead of the next pairs at 6 each. Ten co-assignee pairs in total is a modest number for 260 families, meaning most filings are single-assignee rather than jointly developed.
Named-inventor pairs recur alongside corporate assignees
Two individual-inventor pairs each appear on 6 shared filings, a reminder that some of this dataset's activity traces to individual inventors or small teams rather than large corporate R&D groups, particularly in mold-material and pattern-forming niches.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| Micro Systems, Inc. | 0 | — |
| United Technologies Corporation | 0 | — |
| Howmet Research Corporation | 0 | — |
| Siemens Energy, Inc. (US) | 0 | — |
| 3M Innovative Properties Company (US) | 0 | — |
| IC CERAMIC CONSULTING LLC | 0 | — |
| MERRILL GARY B | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a settled core and a thinner set of adjacent branches. Two directions are worth pursuing depending on whether the goal is defensive clearance or new filing strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the top-cited patents
The most-cited records, particularly the stereolithography-pattern investment casting patent and the multi-wall core process patent, anchor claim scope that newer filings still work around. Any new gating, mold-material or core design should be checked against these before drafting claims.
Explore prior art with EurekaAssess the additive-manufacturing overlap before committing R&D
B33Y appears in only 34 of 260 records against 249 for core B22C classification, meaning 3D-printed pattern and mold-core techniques are comparatively under-claimed. That gap is either an opportunity or a sign the intersection has not proven commercially durable — worth confirming before allocating filing budget there.
Map the white space with EurekaCommon questions on casting process patents
The filing trend in this dataset peaked in 2017 at 29 records and has fallen steadily since, reaching a midpoint of 11 in 2022 and continuing down toward single digits by 2026. This pattern typically indicates that the core claim territory — gating design, mold material selection, shrinkage-porosity mitigation — was substantially staked out earlier in the window, leaving less unclaimed space for new entrants. Publication lag of roughly 18 months means the very last year or two is always undercounted, but the multi-year downward slope predates that effect and reflects a genuine slowdown rather than a reporting artefact.
The tracked assignee list includes large aerospace and turbine manufacturers such as General Electric, United Technologies, Siemens Energy US and Howmet Research, alongside materials firms like 3M Innovative Properties. All of these show zero filings in the most recent tracked year, which given the overall declining trend suggests established rather than currently expanding positions. The strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset, at 13 joint filings, links a systems firm with Siemens Energy US, pointing to an active supplier-OEM development relationship worth watching for licensing or partnership activity.
US10940531B1, assigned to The Boeing Company and published in 2021, covers methods for improving the surface finish of investment casting patterns through a two-stage coating process: a first sealing coat followed by a second smoothing coat, before the pattern is used to form a mold and cast a molten material. It is specific to surface-finish improvement via sequential coating materials rather than to investment casting broadly, so it constrains that particular coating sequence rather than the whole process. Anyone developing a different surface-treatment approach, or applying finish improvements at a different stage of the pattern-forming process, would need to compare their method against this claim structure specifically rather than assume it blocks investment casting generally.
The clearest gap in this dataset sits at the intersection of casting process and additive manufacturing: B33Y (additive manufacturing) appears in only 34 of 260 records compared with 249 for core foundry-moulding classification B22C. That imbalance suggests 3D-printed sacrificial patterns, hybrid additive-cast mold cores, and additively manufactured ceramic shell components are comparatively under-claimed relative to traditional gating and mold-material approaches. Real-time filling-simulation feedback and grain-refinement inoculant chemistry also show thinner representation than the core process classes, making them reasonable areas to scout before assuming the space is occupied.
The United States leads with 105 filings, more than double China's 50, followed by Europe (EPO) at 38, WIPO/PCT at 21, Japan at 12 and Canada at 9. This US-weighted distribution is somewhat unusual for a metals-processing technology and likely reflects the aerospace and turbine-manufacturing base of the leading assignees, several of whom are US-headquartered. Filers targeting this space should treat US prior art and prosecution history as the primary reference point, while not overlooking the sizeable European filing volume.
Research Casting Process and Solidification Control in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole casting process and solidification control 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.