Cross Laminated Timber Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- 40.7% concentration. The top 5 of 51 ranked assignees hold 70 of 172 records in scope — a small group controls the filed art.
- 2021 was the peak, not a plateau. Filings hit 34 in 2021, then fell to 10 by 2024, a -71% swing that predates any recent-year publication lag.
- Structural classes dominate, additive manufacturing does not. E04B building structures reach 39.5% of records while B33Y additive manufacturing sits at just 8.1%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (34 records) with 2024 (10) — 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 172 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 172 published records at the intersection of cross laminated timber (CLT) and mass timber panel construction, filtered to documents that also address lamella grading, adhesive line performance, rolling shear, charring rate, dimensional stability or connection detailing. That combination narrows the field to the engineering problems that determine whether a mass timber panel performs structurally and survives a fire test, rather than every wood-product filing in general.
Coverage runs from 2015-01-01 to the 2026-07-31 cut-off. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so counts for the most recent one to two years understate actual filing activity and should not be read as a slowdown on their own.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 172-record dataset: the year-by-year filing count, and the IPC subclasses those records fall under.
A sharp rise and fall around 2021
Filings moved from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 34 in 2021, then declined to 10 by 2024 — a -71% change over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under the usual publication lag and are not evidence of a continued decline.
Structural and laminate classes carry the volume
E04B (building structures & elements) appears in 39.5% of the 172 records, E04C (structural building components) in 27.9%, and B32B (layered products & laminates) in 27.3%. Preservation (B27K, 11.6%), particle/fibre board (B27N, 9.9%), additive manufacturing (B33Y, 8.1%), scaffolding/formwork (E04G, 8.1%) and veneers/plywood (B27D, 7.0%) trail well behind. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to more than 100% of the record total.
Shares are the percentage of the 172 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Cross Laminated Timber and Mass Timber with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cross laminated timber and mass timber and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this corpus
US20190168410A1 — Automated factory systems for fire-protected mass timber components
Prefabricated Class-A fire-protected mass timber building components are first sprayed or curtain-coated with clean fire inhibiting chemical (CFIC) liquid, in an automated prefabricated wood building factory environment, to provide Class-A fire-protection under the ASTM 84E test standard. The components are then coated again with a different chemical liquid to add UV-light, moisture and termite protection. A multi-axis robotic spray system applies CFIC liquid across all surfaces of the prefabricated mass timber, guided by machine vision.Filed by Mighty Fire Breaker LLC, published 2019-06-06.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US10131119B2 | Laminated wood product | 40 |
| 2 | US20190168410A1 | Automated factory systems and methods for producing class-a fire-protected prefabricated mass timber and wood… | 37 |
| 3 | US10464294B2 | Wood panel assemblies and methods of production | 36 |
| 4 | US20220213684A1 | Modular composite action panel and structural systems using same | 32 |
| 5 | US10430757B2 | Mass timber building factory system for producing prefabricated class-A fire-protected mass timber building c… | 20 |
| 6 | US20200080297A1 | Insulatable, Insulative Framework Apparatus and Methods of Making and Using Same | 18 |
| 7 | US11066826B2 | Insulatable, insulative framework apparatus and methods of making and using same | 16 |
| 8 | US20230068992A1 | Actuated foldable building system module | 15 |
| 9 | US20190171998A1 | Mass timber building factory system for producing prefabricated class-a fire-protected mass timber building c… | 15 |
| 10 | US20200181905A1 | Multi-story building construction using long strand timber panels | 14 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records; treat them as a signal of influence within this dataset, not a ranking of current technical importance.
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-outs from the dataset that matter more than the raw counts on their own.
The field is concentrated at the top, then thins fast
The leading assignee holds 20 records; by fifth place that has dropped to 8, and by tenth place to 6. Combined, the top 10 account for 61.0% of all 172 records. Below that sits a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants, which is where freedom-to-operate searches need the most manual review rather than reliance on assignee-level heuristics.
Peak activity has passed, at least through 2024
Filings rose steadily to a 2021 peak of 34 and fell to 10 by 2024. That decline is measured on complete-year data; 2025 and 2026 counts are still incomplete because of the ~18-month publication lag and should not be added to the trend line yet.
Structural claims crowd the space additive manufacturing has barely touched
Building structures and structural components (E04B, E04C) together with layered laminates (B32B) cover the bulk of filings. Additive manufacturing (B33Y) and scaffolding/formwork (E04G) each sit at 8.1%, suggesting these adjacent process routes carry comparatively less claim density relative to the structural core.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cross laminated timber and mass timber, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the ground is still open
Filing activity clusters around a handful of assignees with mass timber factory or fire-protection focus, while co-filing between organisations is rare in this dataset.
A single filer sets the pace
The top-ranked assignee in this 51-company ranking holds 20 of the 172 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-placed filer at 8 and the tenth-placed filer at 6. That gap between first and fifth place is the clearest sign of where claim density is highest.
Most filers appear once or twice
Beyond the top 10, which together hold 61.0% of records, the remaining assignees in the ranking hold small, often single-digit counts. This is typical of a field still being explored by factory operators, materials suppliers and individual inventors rather than settled among a few incumbents.
Co-filing is rare
Only two co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, each linked by a single shared filing. Cross-organisation collaboration is not yet a visible pattern in this corpus; most records carry a single assignee.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| J DAVID WRIGHT LLC | 0 | -100% |
| FRERES LUMBER CO INC | 0 | — |
| NET ZERO PROJECTS LTD | 0 | — |
| Global Bamboo Technologies Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| T2Earth Holdings LLC | 0 | — |
| Abodo Wood Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Koppers Performance Chemicals Inc. | 0 | — |
| Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The trend and composition data point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, whitespace filing or competitor tracking.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the top 10
With 61.0% of records held by ten assignees, a targeted clearance search against that group covers the majority of dense claim territory before wider searching is needed.
Check claims in Eureka →Draft around the under-claimed branches
Additive manufacturing and scaffolding/formwork each sit at 8.1% of records — low relative to the structural core — and may offer more room for a differentiated first claim.
Explore whitespace in Eureka →Track the leader's post-2021 activity
Recent-year momentum data shows several assignees at zero in the latest year; confirming whether that reflects the publication lag or an actual pullback requires assignee-level monitoring.
Set up assignee tracking in Eureka →Common questions about this landscape
This dataset ranks 51 assignees across 172 records, with the leading filer holding 20 records. The top 5 assignees combined hold 70 records, or 40.7% of all records in scope, and the top 10 hold 61.0%. Below the top 10 the ranking thins into a long tail of assignees with only a few filings each, which is typical of a field still attracting new entrants rather than one settled among a handful of incumbents.
Filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 34 in 2021, then fell to 10 by 2024 — a -71% change over that span, using complete-year data only. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so the true recent trend cannot yet be read from those years. Anyone tracking this space should treat 2021 as the confirmed peak so far and revisit the post-2024 numbers once they mature.
The dataset spans building structures and elements (E04B, 39.5% of records), structural building components (E04C, 27.9%), layered laminates (B32B, 27.3%), wood preservation (B27K, 11.6%), particle and fibre board (B27N, 9.9%), additive manufacturing (B33Y, 8.1%), scaffolding and formwork (E04G, 8.1%), and veneers and plywood (B27D, 7.0%). Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages add up to more than 100% of the 172 records and should not be summed as if they were exclusive categories.
The IPC composition shows additive manufacturing (B33Y) and scaffolding/formwork (E04G) each present in only 8.1% of the 172 records, notably lower than the structural core classes above 27%. That gap suggests these process-adjacent areas, along with specific technical routes like rolling shear test methodology or adhesive line sensing, carry comparatively less claim density and may be more accessible for a first-filed claim, though a full clearance search is still required before relying on this as freedom-to-operate guidance.
The United States leads with 50 filings, followed by WIPO PCT applications at 25, the European Patent Office at 20, Australia at 19, Canada at 17, and the United Kingdom at 7. This spread indicates the technology is being protected across multiple major timber-construction markets rather than concentrated in a single jurisdiction, which matters for anyone assessing where a competitor's protection actually extends.
Research Cross Laminated Timber and Mass Timber in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cross laminated timber and mass timber 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.