Concrete Printing Extrusion Systems Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- 71.7% concentration. The top 5 of 37 ranked assignees hold 76 of the 106 records in scope — a field with a narrow leadership group and a long single-filing tail.
- Filing peaked in 2017. Activity has not returned to that 14-filing high; the tracked 2021-to-2024 span shows filings falling from 2 to 1, a 50% drop across three years.
- Printer-class IPC dominates. B41J (typewriters & printers) covers 63.2% of the 106 records, while additive-manufacturing-specific B33Y sits at just 9.4% — most of the drafting still happens in inkjet-derived language, not 3D-printing-native claims.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 records) with 2024 (1) — 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 106 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this dataset actually covers
The search scope pairs concrete printing extrusion and printhead nozzle language with the operating variables that determine whether an extrusion system actually works at scale: pump pressure, nozzle geometry, flow rate control, material blockage, layer width and start/stop transient behaviour. That combination pulls in both dedicated construction-printing filings and a large body of prior art from inkjet and industrial marking, where nozzle directionality, drop formation and flow control were solved problems long before concrete printing existed as a category.
That overlap is the central fact of this landscape: 106 records sit in scope, and the IPC composition shows printer-class subclasses (B41J, B41M) far outweighing additive-manufacturing-specific classes (B33Y). Anyone drafting new claims in this space is filing adjacent to, not ahead of, a mature inkjet and marking-technology prior art base.
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 106 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filings rose to a 2017 peak and have not recovered
The tracked series runs from a 2017 peak of 14 filings down through a 2021-to-2024 span that fell from 2 to 1 filings, a 50% decline over three years. Note that publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any such series will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be — this is a data-timing effect, not necessarily a signal that the field is shrinking.
Printer and printing-process classes dominate over 3D-printing-specific ones
B41J (typewriters & printers) appears on 63.2% of the 106 records, well ahead of G03F (16.0%), C09D (13.2%), B41M and H05K (12.3% each). B33Y, the additive-manufacturing-specific subclass, covers only 9.4% of records — a reminder that these shares overlap because records carry multiple IPC codes, and that most claim language in this space still originates from printer and marking technology rather than construction-specific additive manufacturing.
Shares are the percentage of the 106 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Concrete Printing Extrusion Systems with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about concrete printing extrusion systems and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art shaping this space
Jet directionality control using printhead nozzle
A method of printing and an apparatus for controlling the directionality of liquid emitted from nozzles of a printhead are provided. Example embodiments of the apparatus include directionality control of liquid jets or liquid drops using a liquid jet directionality control mechanism. Example embodiments of the liquid jet directionality control mechanism include asymmetric energy application device configurations, nozzle geometry configurations, liquid delivery channel geometry configurations, or combinations of these configurations.Filed by Eastman Kodak, granted 2012 — illustrates how directionality and nozzle-geometry claims originating in inkjet printing sit directly in the path of later concrete-extrusion nozzle design.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US10254499B1 | Additive manufacturing of active devices using dielectric, conductive and magnetic materials | 485 |
| 2 | US20110187798A1 | High Resolution Electrohydrodynamic Jet Printing for Manufacturing Systems | 239 |
| 3 | US6849308B1 | Method of forming a masking pattern on a surface | 175 |
| 4 | WO2009011709A1 | High resolution electrohydrodynamic jet printing for manufacturing systems | 112 |
| 5 | US20050083364A1 | Method of aligning inkjet nozzle banks for an inkjet printer | 112 |
| 6 | US8562095B2 | High resolution sensing and control of electrohydrodynamic jet printing | 96 |
| 7 | WO2001011426A1 | Method of forming a masking pattern on a surface | 90 |
| 8 | US20120105528A1 | High Resolution Sensing and Control of Electrohydrodynamic Jet Printing | 88 |
| 9 | US9061494B2 | High resolution electrohydrodynamic jet printing for manufacturing systems | 85 |
| 10 | GB2350321A | Method of forming a masking or spacer pattern on a substrate using inkjet droplet deposition | 80 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings — read them as a signal of influence on later drafting, not as a measure 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 mean for a filing decision
Three read-throughs from the concentration, trend and classification data above.
Leadership is narrow, the tail is long
Five assignees out of 37 ranked hold 76 of the 106 records in scope. The next five add only 26 more records to reach 96.2% at ten assignees, meaning the remaining 27 ranked companies are splitting a handful of filings between them — a classic narrow-leader, long-tail structure.
Activity has cooled since the 2017 peak
The filing trend peaked at 14 in 2017 and the tracked 2021-to-2024 window shows a decline from 2 to 1 filings, a 50% drop. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as confirming further decline.
Claims still speak inkjet, not construction-print, language
B41J (printers) covers 63.2% of records while B33Y (additive manufacturing) covers just 9.4%. New filings drafted in construction-native language, rather than adapted printhead terminology, face comparatively less occupied claim space.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to concrete printing extrusion systems, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds ground, and where the field is still open
The ranked leaders sit largely in inkjet and industrial marking, not dedicated construction-printing OEMs — a sign of how much of this landscape was built before concrete printing existed as a market.
A single assignee sets the pace
The leading assignee holds 18 of the 106 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 13. That gap alone accounts for a meaningful share of the top-5 concentration figure.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet across the leadership group
Every one of the assignees tracked for recent-year momentum shows 0 filings in the latest year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this is as likely to reflect pipeline timing as an actual pause in R&D.
Co-filing is concentrated in a small number of pairs
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with the strongest pairing recorded at 8 shared records and two other pairs at 4 each. Co-filing here looks more like internal cross-listing between related entities than broad industry collaboration.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Patterning Technologies | 0 | — |
| Videojet Technologies Inc. | 0 | — |
| MARKEM IMAJE CORP | 0 | — |
| Xerox Corporation | 0 | — |
| Eastman Kodak Company | 0 | — |
| JETMASK | 0 | — |
| Katholieke Universiteit Leuven | 0 | — |
| ROGERS JOHN | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The concentration and classification patterns above point to specific next steps depending on whether you are filing, licensing, or scouting for acquisition targets.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leading assignee
With one assignee holding 18 of 106 records, any nozzle-geometry or directionality claim should be checked against that portfolio first, not just against the aggregate field.
Run an FTO check in EurekaDraft in construction-native language, not adapted inkjet terms
The B41J-to-B33Y gap suggests real room for claims written around cementitious material behaviour rather than adapted printhead mechanics.
Explore claim drafting in EurekaWatch for pipeline filings before assuming activity has stopped
Zero latest-year filings across tracked leaders is consistent with publication lag, not necessarily a real slowdown; recheck this trend in future cuts.
Set a monitoring alert in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The ranking covers 37 assignees, with the leader holding 18 of the 106 records in scope and the fifth-place holder at 13. Together the top 5 account for 71.7% of all records, and the top 10 account for 96.2%, which means the remaining 27 ranked assignees are splitting a small number of filings among them. Many of the leading names come from inkjet printing and industrial marking rather than dedicated construction-printing companies, reflecting how much of the underlying nozzle and flow-control technology predates concrete printing as an application.
Filings peaked at 14 in 2017 and the tracked 2021-to-2024 window shows a decline from 2 to 1, a 50% drop over three years. However, publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 figures in any such dataset are still incomplete and should not be read as proof of an ongoing slowdown. The safest read is that the field has cooled from its 2017 high, with the most recent trend still an open question until later data cuts fill in.
The dataset spans several IPC subclasses, led by B41J (typewriters & printers) at 63.2% of the 106 records, followed by G03F (photolithography) at 16.0%, C09D (coatings, paints & inks) at 13.2%, and B41M and H05K each at 12.3%. B33Y, the subclass specific to additive manufacturing, covers only 9.4% of records. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these percentages overlap rather than summing to 100%, and the dominance of printer-class codes shows that most claim language in this space still derives from inkjet and marking technology rather than construction-specific additive manufacturing.
US8091983B2, assigned to Eastman Kodak and granted in 2012, claims methods and apparatus for controlling the directionality of liquid emitted from printhead nozzles, including asymmetric energy application, nozzle geometry configurations and liquid delivery channel geometry. Anyone designing a concrete extrusion nozzle that relies on asymmetric geometry or channel shaping to steer material flow should review this claim scope closely, since it predates construction-specific 3D printing and was drafted broadly enough to cover directionality control by geometric or energy-based means regardless of the liquid being jetted. It is one of the more heavily cited records in this landscape, which signals its influence on later nozzle-design drafting even though citation counts favour older filings generally.
The clearest gap sits between the heavy printer-class coverage (B41J at 63.2%) and the much thinner additive-manufacturing-specific coverage (B33Y at 9.4%), suggesting that claims written natively around cementitious material behaviour — rather than adapted from inkjet printhead mechanics — face less occupied prior art. Specific under-claimed areas include construction-scale nozzle geometry, real-time material blockage detection, layer-width adaptive flow control, start/stop transient compensation for cementitious paste, and pump-pressure feedback loops tuned for coarse-aggregate mixes. These are inferred from the classification gap in the current 106-record dataset, not from an exhaustive freedom-to-operate search, so they should be treated as starting points for deeper review.
Research Concrete Printing Extrusion Systems in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole concrete printing extrusion systems 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.