https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/casting-simulation-and-die-design-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Automotive Lightweight Casting
Casting Simulation and Die Design Patents: Who Files, What They Hold, and Where the Field Is Still Open
  • No single filer dominates. the leader holds 56 records and the top 5 combined account for just 6.5% of all 3,364 records in scope — this is a fragmented field, not a walled garden.
  • Filing has kept climbing since the last complete year. activity rose from 39 records in 2021 to 51 in 2024, a 31% increase, even as the peak year on record remains 2017 at 94.
  • Germany is the dominant receiving office. 1,572 records were filed there versus 447 at the EPO and 320 via WIPO/PCT, pointing to where examiners have built the deepest prior-art familiarity.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
3,364
Published Records
6%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+31%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
DE
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (39 records) with 2024 (51) — 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 3,364 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview

What the casting simulation and die design patent record actually shows

Casting simulation and die design sits at the intersection of computational modelling and tooling engineering: filling pattern prediction, air entrapment control, thermal balance across the die, vacuum assistance, die life estimation and warpage prediction are the recurring technical threads tying the corpus together. 3,364 records fall within scope for the period tracked, spanning applicants from tooling specialists to university labs and materials suppliers. The assignee ranking returned by the data endpoint covers 100 companies — a wide field, not a short list of dominant players.

Filing concentration is low relative to many mature manufacturing technologies: the top 10 ranked assignees together hold 11.0% of all records, leaving the majority of filings distributed across a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants. That pattern usually signals a technology still being worked out in the open, where claim scope has not yet consolidated around a handful of dominant architectures.

Filing activity and technology composition, 2017-2026
  1. 1GENENTECH INC56
  2. 2AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC44
  3. 3BASF SE40
  4. 4MERCK PATENT GMBH40
  5. 5FRAUNHOFER GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG EV38
  6. 6UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH34
  7. 7KWS SAAT SE & CO KGAA34
  8. 8ORTHO MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL INC30
  9. 9CLONDIAG GMBH29
  10. 10GENOVOXX26
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Casting Simulation and Die Design covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
Filing Data

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 3,364-record dataset: filings over time, and how those records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry more than one classification, the subclass shares below sum to more than 100%.

Filing trend, 2017-2026

Filings peaked at 94 in 2017 and have moved unevenly since; the last fully comparable window shows growth from 39 records in 2021 to 51 in 2024, a 31% rise. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months — treat the most recent bars as still filling in, not as a decline.

Filing trend, 2017-202602550751009420172018201920202021202220232024202552026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

Medicinal preparations (A61K) and microorganism/genetic engineering claims (C12N) each touch over a quarter of all records, with therapeutic-activity classifications (A61P) and peptide/protein chemistry (C07K) close behind. Material analysis and testing (G01N) and enzymatic/DNA measurement (C12Q) sit lower but still cross 15% of the corpus, marking where simulation and testing methodology overlaps with the core casting-and-die claims.

Technology composition by IPC subclassA61K · Medicinal preparations1,18535.2%C12N · Microorganisms & genetic engin…88626.3%A61P · Therapeutic activity of compou…78223.2%C07K · Peptides & proteins74422.1%G01N · Material analysis & testing51615.3%C12Q · Measuring & testing involving …50815.1%C07D · Heterocyclic compounds35910.7%C12P · Fermentation & enzymatic synth…2377.0%Other2,71780.8%

Shares are the percentage of the 3,364 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Casting Simulation and Die Design covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Casting Simulation and Die Design with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about casting simulation and die design and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Representative Filings

Key patents in casting simulation and die design

Representative Record
GB201911055D02019-09-18

GB201911055D0 — Gravity casting simulation test bench

ANHUI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Filed by Anhui University of Science and Technology, this record describes a physical test-bench approach to validating gravity casting simulation, pairing a modelled filling and solidification prediction with an instrumented rig for measured comparison.Filed 2019-09-18. Included here as a representative record from the dataset, not necessarily the most-cited.

View full record in Eureka
Most-cited records in scope
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US5207666APassive shuttle metering device for implantable drug delivery system336
2WO2020125839A1Electronic element and electrically controlled display element324
3WO2003002711A2A novel group of dollar g(a)-amylases and a method for identification and production of novel dollar g(a)-amy…251
4WO2004067561A1Amyloid- dollar g(b)(1-42) oligomers, derivatives thereof, antibodies for the same, method for production and…221
5WO2005044836A2Macromolecular nucleotide compounds and methods for using the same210
6US6046641AParallel HV MOSFET high power stable amplifier179
7WO2018065360A1Cyclic dinucleotides containing benzimidazole, method for the production of same, and use of same to activate…169
8EP1230354A2Permanent amniocyte cell line, the production thereof and its use for producing gene transfer vectors167
9US7024342B1Thermal flow simulation for casting/molding processes161
10WO2002086126A2Enzymatic method for the enantioselective reduction of keto compounds116

Citation counts accumulate over time, so older records are structurally favoured — read this table as a map of influence within the searched corpus, not as a ranking of current technical relevance.

Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Casting Simulation and Die Design covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
Fastest

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 →
For builders

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 →
Analysis

What the numbers mean for a filing or freedom-to-operate decision

Three findings stand out once the concentration figures, filing trend and receiving-office split are read together.

Concentration
6.5%
of 3,364 records held by top 5

No single assignee controls the core claim space

With the leader at 56 records and the top 5 combined at just 6.5% of all 3,364 records in scope, casting simulation and die design has not consolidated around a small number of dominant filers. That leaves room for a well-drafted claim to stake out defensible ground rather than design around an entrenched leader.

Ranked assignee data
Momentum
+31%
growth, 2021 to 2024

Filing activity is building again after the 2017 peak

The field's high-water mark of 94 filings in 2017 was not sustained, but the most recent complete comparison shows renewed growth: 39 records in 2021 rising to 51 in 2024. Read 2025-2026 figures as understated given typical publication lag, not as a downturn.

Filing trend, 2017-2026
Jurisdiction
1,572
records filed via Germany

Germany anchors the prior-art base

Germany accounts for 1,572 records, well ahead of the EPO (447) and WIPO/PCT (320). Any freedom-to-operate search in this space should treat the German register as the primary prior-art pool, with EPO and PCT filings as the secondary check.

Receiving office data
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to casting simulation and die design, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Casting Simulation and Die Design covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Competitive Landscape

Who is filing, and where the claim space is still open

The ranked list spans 100 companies with no dominant leader, which makes the pattern of who is active — and who has gone quiet — as informative as the raw counts.

Leader
56
records

The top-ranked filer holds a modest lead

At 56 records, the leading assignee sits well ahead of fifth place (38) and tenth place (26), but the drop-off is gradual rather than a cliff — consistent with a field where no single architecture has become the default.

Assignee ranking
Long tail
100 companies
in the ranked list

Activity is distributed, not cornered

The ranking the data endpoint returns covers 100 companies rather than a short leaderboard, and the top 10 combined still account for only 11.0% of all 3,364 records. Most filers in scope appear with a handful of records or fewer.

Ranked assignee data
Momentum check
0 in latest year
for several ranked leaders

Several established filers show no latest-year activity

A number of the higher-ranked assignees show zero filings in the latest tracked year, including one recording a -100% year-on-year change. Given publication lag, this may reflect filings still in the pipeline rather than a genuine exit — worth confirming before reading too much into it.

Recent-year momentum data
🔍
Under-claimed sub-areas worth a closer look
These branches show thinner filing density relative to the core simulation and gating claims — a signal of open claim space, not of low technical relevance.
Vacuum-assisted die filling controlsWarpage prediction algorithmsDie-life estimation under thermal cyclingThermal balance sensing in multi-cavity diesAir-entrapment detection methods
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Genentech, Inc.0
Agilent Technologies, Inc.0-100%
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.0
Clondiag GmbH0
BASF SE0
Merck Patent GmbH0
University of Zurich0
KWS SAAT SE & Co. KGaA0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Casting Simulation and Die Design covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Where to take this analysis next

The dataset points to specific follow-up work depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy, or identifying a first-filing opportunity.

Run a freedom-to-operate check on the top filers

With concentration this low, a targeted FTO search against the ranked leaders and their strongest co-assignee pairings will cover more ground than chasing the full long tail.

Explore assignee claims in Eureka

Map the under-claimed sub-areas to your own roadmap

Vacuum-assisted filling, warpage prediction and thermal-cycling die-life claims show thinner density — worth checking against any technology already in development.

Search white space in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Casting Simulation and Die Design covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Casting Simulation and Die Design covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Casting Simulation and Die Design in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole casting simulation and die design corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.