Cooling Hole Drilling Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
Cooling hole drilling and film cooling design patents: who holds the claim space
Concentrated at the top. The five leading assignees hold 150 of 390 records in scope (38.5%), and the top ten hold 230 (59.0%) — over half the field sits with a small group of turbine OEMs and drilling equipment makers. Filings rose from 8 in 2017 to a peak of 26 in 2019, then declined; 2021 to 2024 shows a 57% drop (7 to 3 records). The most recent years are undercounted because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 should not yet be read as a continued decline.
- 1HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC35
- 2UNITED TECH CORP35
- 3GENERAL ELECTRIC CO34
- 4ROLLS ROYCE PLC26
- 5RTX CORP20
See the full cooling hole drilling and film cooling design analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions on this landscape
Who holds the most patents in film cooling hole drilling?
The ranking covers 87 assignees, and it is concentrated at the top: the leading assignee holds 35 of the 390 records in scope, and the top five combined hold 150 records (38.5% of the field). By the tenth-ranked company the count has fallen to 13 records, showing a steep drop-off rather than an even spread. This pattern is typical of a niche manufacturing technology where a handful of turbine OEMs and equipment suppliers accumulated portfolios over many years while later entrants filed only a few records each.
Is patent filing in cooling hole drilling still growing?
No — filings peaked at 26 records in 2019 and declined to 3 records by 2024, a 57% drop between 2021 and 2024. That said, patent publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so the 2025-2026 figures in this dataset are still incomplete and should not be read as confirmation of a continued decline. A clearer picture will emerge once the next data cycle publishes and back-fills those years.
What is the difference between laser drilling and EDM for cooling holes, in patent terms?
In this dataset, laser drilling and electrical discharge drilling (EDM) are covered separately in the IPC classification: B23H (electro/chemical machining) covers 8.7% of the 390 records, while H01S (lasers) covers 5.1%. Laser drilling claims tend to focus on recast layer control and pulse parameters, whereas EDM-related claims more often address hole breakout and flow calibration after material removal. Both processes recur across the most-cited records in this landscape, indicating they are treated as competing rather than complementary approaches in most filings.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cooling Hole Drilling and Film Cooling Design covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.