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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/electrochemical-machining-accuracy-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Electrochemical Machining AccuracyElectrochemical machining accuracy patents: who controls the interelectrode gap, and where the field is still open
- 28.4% concentration. The top 5 assignees hold 155 of 545 records in scope - a compact leadership tier above a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants.
- Filings cooled after 2022. The field peaked at 38 records in 2022 and moved from 15 in 2021 to 8 in 2024, a 47% drop over that span - though 2025-26 counts are still filling in as publications lag filing.
- 90.5% sit in B23H. Electro/chemical machining (B23H) covers 493 of 545 records; electrolytic removal and cleaning (C25F) trails at 17.8%, leaving pump, turbine and alloy-adjacent classes thinly claimed.
545
Published Records
28%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-47%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (15 records) with 2024 (8) — 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 545 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This landscape tracks 545 published records matching electrochemical machining accuracy claims filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, built around interelectrode gap control, pulse electrochemical machining, stray corrosion, electrolyte flow, tool design and dimensional repeatability. The scope is deliberately narrow: it is not general ECM, but the accuracy-and-control subset of it - the claims that determine how tight a tolerance a shop can actually hold.
Filing activity is concentrated in classic ECM subclass B23H, with a smaller but persistent presence in electrolytic removal (C25F) and scattered activity in adjacent mechanical classes - pumps, turbines, alloys and pipe fittings - where ECM accuracy techniques are applied rather than originated. Receiving-office data shows the United States as the dominant filing venue, ahead of Europe, the UK, PCT filings and China.
Filing activity, 2015-2026 (2025-26 still filling in)
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Electrochemical Machining Accuracy 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
The data
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 545-record set: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a record can carry more than one classification, the subclass shares add up to more than 100%.
A 2022 peak followed by a cooling filing pace
Annual filings rose from a single record in 2017 to a peak of 38 in 2022, then declined - 15 in 2021 to 8 in 2024 marks a 47% drop over that three-year span. Because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as a continued decline.
B23H dominates; adjacent classes are thin
Electro/chemical machining (B23H) appears in 90.5% of the 545 records in scope, with electrolytic removal and cleaning (C25F) a distant second at 17.8%. Rotary-piston pumps, metal casting, turbines, alloys, hydrocarbon refining and pipe fittings each sit under 4%, marking where ECM accuracy techniques are being applied to specific hardware rather than developed as core method.
Shares are the percentage of the 545 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 Electrochemical Machining Accuracy covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Electrochemical Machining Accuracy with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about electrochemical machining accuracy and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Most-cited records and a representative filing
Representative Filing
US20230066556A1 - Methods, systems, and apparatuses for performing electrochemical machining using discretized electrolyte flow
VOXEL INNOVATIONS, INC.
A discretized-flow electrode divides the ECM cathode's machining face into discrete sections, each fed by its own local electrolyte inlet and separated by an outlet channel, so that electrolyte flow splits into approximately equal portions across the face. The design targets even flow distribution as a route to more consistent gap control across a large or irregular machining surface.Filed by Voxel Innovations - published 2023-03-02.
Highest-cited records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6402931B1 | Electrochemical machining using modulated reverse electric fields | 94 |
| 2 | US5114548A | Orbital electrochemical machining | 78 |
| 3 | US6835299B1 | Electrochemical machining method and apparatus | 74 |
| 4 | CN103521861A | 基于三维复合流场的整体叶盘型面电解加工装置及方法 | 73 |
| 5 | US7192260B2 | Progressive cavity pump/motor stator, and apparatus and method to manufacture same by electrochemical machini… | 72 |
| 6 | US6234752B1 | Method and tool for electrochemical machining | 68 |
| 7 | US20010054449A1 | Alloy pipes and methods of making same | 63 |
| 8 | US5833835A | Method and apparatus for electrochemical machining by bipolar current pulses | 60 |
| 9 | US3372099A | Electrochemical machining using a multisegmented electrode with individual current control for each segment | 58 |
| 10 | US5820744A | Electrochemical machining method and apparatus | 56 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references within the searched corpus - treat this as a signal of influence, not of current relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 Electrochemical Machining Accuracy 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
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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns worth acting on: where claim density already blocks new filings, where the field's momentum has genuinely changed, and where citation weight sits relative to recent activity.
Concentration
28.4% / 155 of 545
top 5 assignees' share of records in scope
A compact leadership tier, then a long tail
The top 5 assignees account for 155 of the 545 records in scope - just over a quarter of the field - while the tenth-ranked assignee holds only 11 records. That gap between fifth (17) and tenth (11) suggests the leadership tier is not much larger than five firms; most of the ranked 100 companies hold only a handful of families each.
Ranking covers 100 companies, counted in families.
Filing pace
38 in 2022, then -47%
peak year vs. 2021→2024 change
Activity peaked in 2022 and has since pulled back
Annual filings rose to a peak of 38 records in 2022 before falling from 15 in 2021 to 8 in 2024, a 47% decline over that span. Given the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, the 2025-26 figures are not yet complete enough to read as a further slowdown - only 2024 and earlier should be treated as settled.
Peak year: 2022, 38 records.
Claim geography
90.5% B23H, 17.8% C25F
share of 545 records carrying each subclass
Core ECM method claims dominate; hardware-adjacent classes are sparse
Nearly all records touch B23H, the core electro/chemical machining subclass, but only a handful cross into pump (F04C, 3.5%), casting (B22D, 2.9%), turbine (F01D, 2.4%) or alloy (C22C, 2.0%) classifications. That imbalance points to accuracy-control innovation concentrating on the machining method itself rather than on end-application hardware.
Eight IPC subclasses tracked across 545 records.
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 electrochemical machining accuracy, with the prior art for and against each one.
Co-assignee activity is limited but present
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | Philips Norden AB | 4 |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | MUCHUTDINOV RAFAIL R | 3 |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | KUCENKO VIKTOR N | 3 |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | GIMAEV NASICH Z | 3 |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | BELOGORSKY ALEKSANDR L | 3 |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | AGAFONOV IGOR L | 3 |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | ZHITNIKOV VLADIMIR PAVLOVICH | 2 |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | ZAJCEV ALEKSANDR N | 2 |
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest pairing linked to a single corporate family appearing under related entity names - a reminder that some apparent multi-party collaboration is really parent-subsidiary filing.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Electrochemical Machining Accuracy 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
Players
Who is filing, and who has gone quiet
The leader holds 66 records, well ahead of fifth place at 17 - a steep drop-off that marks a real leadership tier rather than a gradual gradient. Recent-year momentum data, however, shows several of the largest historical filers - including the leader - recording zero filings in the latest year, a pattern consistent with a maturing claim set rather than continued land-grab activity.
Leader
66 records
leading assignee's family count
One firm sits well clear of the rest
The top-ranked assignee holds 66 records against 17 for fifth place - a gap wide enough that this is a genuine single leader, not a tie among several firms. Its recent-year filings have dropped to zero, meaning current activity has to be read from later entrants rather than from the historical leader's pipeline.
Leader vs. fifth place: 66 vs. 17.
Mid-tier
11 records
tenth-place assignee's family count
A shallow mid-tier before the long tail begins
Tenth place holds 11 records, only slightly below fifth place's 17 - the drop-off from leader to mid-tier is sharper than the drop-off within the mid-tier itself. Below tenth, filings likely thin out quickly across the remaining ranked companies.
Ranking spans 100 companies total.
Momentum
0 in latest year
recent filings from several top-ranked assignees
Historical leaders have largely stopped filing
Several of the assignees with the largest historical record counts show zero filings in the latest tracked year, including year-over-year drops as steep as -100%. That does not necessarily mean disengagement - given publication lag, some of this may simply not have surfaced yet - but it does mean recent competitive signal is coming from newer or smaller filers.
Momentum tracked across six leading assignees.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| General Electric Co | 0 | -100% |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | — |
| Rolls-Royce Corp | 0 | — |
| Lehr Precision Inc | 0 | — |
| Rolls-Royce plc | 0 | — |
| VOXEL INNOVATIONS INC | 0 | — |
| Doncasters Turbo Production Division | 0 | — |
| Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Electrochemical Machining Accuracy 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
What's Next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with a settled leadership tier and cooling headline volume, but with specific technical branches still open to new claims.
Map the white space claim by claim
The under-claimed branches above - discretized flow electrodes, adaptive gap sensing, corrosion-suppression coatings - are starting points, not conclusions. A claim-by-claim read of the nearest prior art in each branch will show how much room actually remains.
Explore white space in Eureka →Watch for new entrants replacing quiet incumbents
With several top historical filers at zero recent filings, the next competitive signal is more likely to come from newer assignees than from the current leader. Tracking new applicants entering B23H and C25F filings is the more useful signal than watching the incumbents.
Set up assignee tracking in Eureka →Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Electrochemical Machining Accuracy 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
Common questions on electrochemical machining accuracy patents
One assignee leads clearly with 66 records, well ahead of fifth place at 17 records among the ranked companies. That said, the leader's recent-year filings have dropped to zero, so current record count does not equal current competitive activity. Anyone evaluating this space should look at both the historical ranking and the recent-year momentum data, since they tell different stories.
Filings peaked at 38 records in 2022 and then declined, with the 2021-to-2024 span showing a 47% drop from 15 to 8 records. However, publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset are still incomplete. It is more accurate to say filing pace has cooled since its 2022 peak than to say the technology is losing relevance - the claims filed in 2024-25 simply have not all published yet.
The core electro/chemical machining subclass (B23H) appears in 90.5% of the 545 records in scope, making it by far the dominant classification. Electrolytic removal and cleaning (C25F) is a distant second at 17.8%. Application-specific hardware classes - pumps, turbines, castings, alloys - each account for under 4% of records, indicating that most patent activity targets the machining method itself rather than a specific downstream product.
The clearest gaps sit at the intersection of core ECM method claims and specific hardware applications: turbine blisk-specific tool design, pump-stator tooling, and stray-corrosion suppression coatings all show thin filing density relative to the dominant B23H method claims. Discretized electrolyte flow electrode designs, as seen in newer filings like Voxel Innovations' 2023 application, also represent an active but not yet crowded sub-area. These are directional signals from classification density, not a guarantee of freedom to operate - a full prior-art search is still required before filing.
The top 5 assignees together hold 155 of the 545 records in scope, or 28.4% of the field, while the top 10 hold 221 records, or 40.6%. That leaves roughly 60% of records spread across a long tail of the remaining ranked companies, many holding only a handful of families each. This is a moderately concentrated field - not a monopoly, but one where a handful of firms have built a meaningful claim position around the core method.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Electrochemical Machining Accuracy 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 Electrochemical Machining Accuracy in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole electrochemical machining accuracy 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.