Coatings & Surface Treatment Patents: Top Filers & Trends 2026
- 10.1% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees together hold 17,223 of the 171,025 records in scope — a real lead, but nowhere near control of the field.
- Filings down 51% from 2021 to 2024. Annual volume fell from 700 to 346 over that span, the last three-year stretch the data can treat as complete once publication lag is accounted for.
- No IPC subclass tops 1.5% of records. Even the densest class, C23C coating and surface deposition, covers only 2,601 of 171,025 records — claim activity is spread thin, not stacked.
Filing growth compares 2021 (700 records) with 2024 (346) — 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 171,025 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset pulls 171,025 published records matching surface coating and surface treatment terminology combined with material-phase, morphology and mechanical-strength language, spanning filings from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off. The scope crosses classical coating deposition (C23C), layered products (B32B), polymer formulation (C08L, C08J, C08K) and imaging-surface work (G03G) — a sign that “coatings” here is less a single technology than a shared vocabulary used across electronics, optics, polymers and metals.
Because the search string pairs coating and treatment language with process and property terms, the corpus captures both the deposition step and the resulting material characterisation claims. That combination is useful for freedom-to-operate work, since a competitor's process patent and its property patent often sit in the same family but get filed years apart.
Filing trend and technology composition
Annual volume and IPC distribution for the 171,025 records in scope, drawn directly from the underlying dataset.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Volume rose to a peak of 816 in 2018, then eased across the following years; the tracked decline from 700 filings in 2021 to 346 in 2024 (-51%) is the most reliable recent signal, since 2025 and 2026 are still filling in under an 18-month publication lag.
IPC subclass distribution
C23C (coating and surface deposition) and B32B (layered products) each sit at 1.5% of all 171,025 records, with G03G, the polymer-composition classes and C09D coatings/paints/inks trailing close behind — a flat distribution rather than one dominant class, since a single record can carry several IPC codes.
Shares are the percentage of the 171,025 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Coatings & Surface Treatment Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about coatings & surface treatment patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this space
US6176551B1 — Surface preparation apparatus and method of using the same
A compact, easily transportable, surface preparation apparatus which includes a surface treatment unit having a cutter drum powered by its own power source. The apparatus includes transport/support wheels and a tow bar preferably interconnected at each end, of the surface treatment unit the rearward connection being a pivotal connection. The surface treatment unit has a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis, with the longitudinal axis perpendicular to the towing direction and the transverse axis coincident with the towing direction.Filed by an individual inventor (Page James H.), granted 2001-01-23 — a reminder that influential prior art in this field is not confined to corporate assignees.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20030216732A1 | Medical instrument with thermochromic or piezochromic surface indicators | 1,848 |
| 2 | US20080170982A1 | Fabrication and Application of Nanofiber Ribbons and Sheets and Twisted and Non-Twisted Nanofiber Yarns | 1,266 |
| 3 | US5711960A | Biocompatible implant material comprising a tri-axial or more three-dimensional fabric | 1,032 |
| 4 | US20020098627A1 | Surface preparation prior to deposition | 910 |
| 5 | US20160045841A1 | New and improved system for processing various chemicals and materials | 860 |
| 6 | US6262833B1 | Capsules for electrophoretic displays and methods for making the same | 854 |
| 7 | US6191007B1 | Method for manufacturing a semiconductor substrate | 775 |
| 8 | US20050258920A1 | System and method for launching surface waves over unconditioned lines | 730 |
| 9 | US20100210745A1 | Molecular Healing of Polymeric Materials, Coatings, Plastics, Elastomers, Composites, Laminates, Adhesives, a… | 718 |
| 10 | US6387981B1 | Radiopaque dental materials with nano-sized particles | 717 |
Citation counts accumulate over time inside this corpus and favour older filings; treat them as a measure of influence on later work, not of current commercial 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 say about the field
Four patterns stand out once the raw counts are read against their proper denominators.
A lead, not a lock
The top five assignees combine for 17,223 of 171,025 records, and the top ten add up to 14.6% of the field. That leaves the large majority of filings spread across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants — a field where a new claim can still stake genuinely open ground.
Volume has cooled from its 2018 peak
Annual filings peaked at 816 in 2018 and fell from 700 in 2021 to 346 in 2024. Recent-year assignee activity shows the same direction — several leading filers show sharp year-on-year drops — though the very latest years understate true filing activity because of publication lag.
No single subclass dominates
The eight leading IPC subclasses each sit at or below 1.5% of the 171,025-record total, and the classes span coating deposition, layered products, polymer chemistry, electrophotography and semiconductor devices. That spread indicates coating and surface-treatment claims are distributed across adjacent fields rather than concentrated in one classification.
Co-filing is limited and mostly intra-group
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, and the strongest links connect a parent company with its own subsidiary rather than joint ventures between unrelated firms. Cross-company collaboration is the exception here, not the norm.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to coatings & surface treatment patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The assignee landscape
The ranked list covers 100 companies by record count. Activity is led by a handful of large electronics, imaging and materials companies, with momentum data showing most of them pulling back from recent peaks.
Imaging and electronics names lead by volume
The leading assignee holds 5,314 records, well ahead of fifth place at 2,214 and tenth place at 1,365 — a steep drop-off after the top few names rather than a gradual taper.
Even leading filers are pulling back
Recent-year momentum data shows several of the most active historical filers posting large year-on-year declines, with some down to zero filings in the latest tracked year. This mirrors the broader 2021-2024 volume decline rather than signalling any one company exiting the space.
Most of the field sits outside the ranked leaders
With the top 10 combining for 14.6% of all 171,025 records, the remainder is distributed across the other ranked companies and the unranked filers beyond them. That breadth matters for freedom-to-operate work: clearance searches cannot stop at the well-known names.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Canon Inc. | 6 | -77% |
| Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. (AGC Inc.) | 5 | -50% |
| Corning Incorporated | 1 | -75% |
| Fujifilm Corporation | 1 | 0% |
| Fujifilm Business Innovation Corp. | 0 | -100% |
| 3M Innovative Properties Company | 0 | -100% |
| Ricoh Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Nippon Steel Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The data points to specific follow-up work depending on whether the goal is clearance, licensing or R&D scoping.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on a specific claim element
With no IPC subclass above 1.5% of records and 85% of the field sitting outside the top 10 assignees, a general landscape view is not enough — clearance work needs claim-level searching against the specific process or composition at issue.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaTrack momentum at the assignee level before committing R&D spend
Recent-year filing drops at several leading assignees may reflect a maturing sub-area or a shift to trade secrecy rather than abandonment; a closer look at which specific claim types those companies stopped filing helps distinguish the two.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaMap the under-claimed branches against current product roadmaps
The gate chips above point to comparatively thin filing density in specific sub-areas; checking whether a planned product or process falls into one of them before drafting is far cheaper than finding out after filing.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The ranked list in this dataset covers 100 assignees, and the leading company holds 5,314 records, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 2,214. The top five combined account for 17,223 records, or 10.1% of the 171,025 records in scope, which is a clear lead but far from a controlling share. The leading names are concentrated among large imaging, electronics and materials companies rather than a single dominant player.
Filing volume peaked at 816 in 2018 and declined from 700 filings in 2021 to 346 in 2024, a drop of 51% over that three-year span. That 2021-2024 window is the most reliable recent trend because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, meaning 2025 and 2026 figures in the data are still incomplete. Based on the complete years available, filing activity has cooled from its late-2010s peak.
No single IPC subclass dominates: the densest, C23C covering coating and surface deposition, accounts for only 1.5% of the 171,025 records in scope, closely followed by B32B layered products at the same share. Polymer composition and processing classes, electrophotography, and semiconductor-related coating work all appear at similar levels just below that. This spread indicates that coating and surface-treatment innovation is distributed across several adjacent fields rather than clustered in one classification, which matters when scoping a search — a single-class query will miss most of the relevant art.
The most useful signal is the combination of low IPC concentration and a long tail of filers: with 85.4% of records sitting outside the top 10 assignees and no subclass above 1.5% of the field, claim space is fragmented rather than locked up by a few dominant portfolios. Sub-areas such as particle morphology control, mechanical-strength characterisation of surface layers, and surface preparation tooling show comparatively thinner filing density relative to core deposition claims. That said, thin filing density should be verified against a targeted search before assuming the space is genuinely open, since sparse data can also reflect narrow search terms.
US6176551B1 claims a surface preparation apparatus — a towable unit with a powered cutter drum, transport wheels and a specific longitudinal-to-transverse axis arrangement relative to the towing direction. It is a mechanical apparatus and process patent for physical surface preparation, not a composition or deposition-chemistry patent, so it has limited bearing on coating formulation or thin-film deposition work. Anyone developing surface preparation equipment with a similar cutter-drum and tow-bar geometry should review its claims closely, but it does not block unrelated coating composition or deposition process work.
Research Coatings & Surface Treatment Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole coatings & surface treatment 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.