Electron Beam Melting Post-Processing Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Filing peaked in 2017 at 282 records and has declined steadily since, with the 2022 midpoint at 209 — a mature, not emerging, claim landscape.
- Coating and brazing subclasses are thin C23C (221) and B23K (258) carry far fewer records than the dominant B22F and B33Y clusters, marking under-claimed adjacencies.
- Most active historical filers have gone quiet General Electric and Xerox both show 0 filings and -100% YoY in the latest year; only Honeywell holds flat.
A process chain that filled its claim space early
Electron beam melting post-processing covers the steps applied after a metal or alloy part is built by electron beam powder bed fusion: hot isostatic pressing to close internal porosity, surface machining to reach final tolerance, and support removal from build structures. This dataset tracks 2,887 patent families filed between 2015 and the current data cut-off where these post-processing steps are claimed alongside the electron beam melting build process itself.
Filing activity rose to a peak of 282 records in 2017 and has declined in the years since, including through the 2022 midpoint at 209 records. Publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months, so the most recent one or two years in any such trend will always read lower than they eventually settle at — but the multi-year decline here predates that lag effect and points to a claim landscape that is consolidating rather than expanding.
Filing trends and technology composition
Filing activity in this dataset peaked in 2017 and has declined through the most recent years, with the caveat that publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months, so the last one to two years will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be.
A peak-then-decline filing curve
Filings rose to a peak of 282 in 2017, held near the 209 mark by the 2022 midpoint, and have tapered to single digits by the most recent partial year — a pattern consistent with a process chain whose core claim space filled early rather than one still being actively built out.
Powder metallurgy and additive manufacturing dominate the classification mix
B22F (powder metallurgy) and B33Y (additive manufacturing) together account for the largest share of records, with C22C alloys close behind; coating (C23C) and welding/brazing (B23K) subclasses carry markedly fewer records despite sitting adjacent to the core process.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,887 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Electron Beam Melting Post-Processing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about electron beam melting post-processing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative filing and the most-cited records
Method for preparation of a superalloy having a crystallographic texture controlled microstructure by electron beam melting
The present disclosure provides a method of preparing superalloy metals having a crystallographic texture controlled microstructure by electron beam melting.Filed 2016-09-22 by Raytheon Technologies Corporation, this record sits at the front edge of the corpus's 2017 filing peak and ties a specific EBM parameter path to a resulting superalloy microstructure.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20170007359A1 | Direct fabrication of orthodontic appliances with variable properties | 359 |
| 2 | US20170007366A1 | Direct fabrication of aligners for arch expansion | 340 |
| 3 | US20170007367A1 | Direct fabrication of aligners for palate expansion and other applications | 334 |
| 4 | US20170007365A1 | Direct fabrication of aligners with interproximal force coupling | 320 |
| 5 | US20170007368A1 | Direct fabrication of attachment templates with adhesive | 318 |
| 6 | US20100291401A1 | Reticulated mesh arrays and dissimilar array monoliths by additive layered manufacturing using electron and l… | 281 |
| 7 | US20170007360A1 | Systems, apparatuses and methods for dental appliances with integrally formed features | 275 |
| 8 | US20170007361A1 | Multi-material aligners | 254 |
| 9 | US20200089826A1 | Integrated process-structure-property modeling frameworks and methods for design optimization and/or performa… | 239 |
| 10 | WO2000067936A1 | Metal powders produced by the reduction of the oxides with gaseous magnesium | 211 |
Citation counts favour older records in any searched corpus and should be read as a signal of influence, not of present-day commercial relevance — several of the most-cited records here are dental-appliance fabrication patents rather than metal post-processing claims.
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 filing pattern signals
The numbers point to a technology chain that filled its core claim space early and is now consolidating rather than expanding, with a few narrow adjacencies left comparatively open.
A closed-then-declining curve, not a growth curve
Filings peaked at 282 in 2017, sat near 209 at the 2022 midpoint, and have fallen to single digits in the most recent partial year. Publication lag means the last year or two will always undercount, but the multi-year decline predates that effect.
Powder metallurgy and 3D printing IPCs dominate
B22F and B33Y together anchor the corpus, with C22C alloys close behind at 786. Coating (C23C, 221) and welding/brazing (B23K, 258) trail well behind despite direct process adjacency, marking where claim density thins out.
Legacy holders have stopped filing, not stopped holding
General Electric, Xerox and several other named assignees show zero filings in the latest year, each a full drop from prior activity. Honeywell is the only tracked assignee still filing, at a flat single record.
US and EPO carry the bulk of filings
The United States leads at 1,086 records, EPO follows at 659, and WIPO/PCT sits at 323, with Germany, Austria and Canada trailing. Competitive and freedom-to-operate work should prioritise US and EPO family coverage first.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to electron beam melting post-processing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claims, and who is still filing
A small group of aerospace, dental-device and materials-processing companies account for the historically active filing in this corpus, but recent-year momentum shows most of them have gone quiet, leaving the claim territory held rather than actively contested.
Even the still-active filer is pulling back
Align Technology logged 2 filings in the latest year, down 94% year over year — the steepest decline among assignees still filing at all in this dataset.
Foundational holders have stopped filing new claims
General Electric, Xerox, Alcoa and H C Starck each show zero filings in the latest tracked year, several at a full -100% year-over-year drop from earlier activity.
Joint filing is rare and concentrated
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear across the corpus, the strongest linking Xerox with Canada's National Research Council; most filers in this space hold their claims independently.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Align Technology, Inc. | 2 | -94% |
| Honeywell International Inc. | 1 | 0% |
| General Electric Company | 0 | -100% |
| Xerox Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Alcoa Corporation | 0 | — |
| H.C. Starck GmbH | 0 | — |
| United Technologies Corporation | 0 | — |
| Rolls-Royce plc | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The filing and classification data here point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, competitive tracking, or identifying open filing territory.
Check freedom-to-operate against the core claim cluster
Before committing to a hot isostatic pressing or surface machining sequence tied to specific EBM parameters, check the B22F and C22C claim territory held by the historically active filers identified here.
Run a claim search in EurekaTrack the dormant holders for renewed activity
Several foundational assignees show zero recent filings; a watch on renewed activity from these holders would flag if the consolidation phase is ending.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaScope a first claim in the thin coating and brazing subclasses
C23C and B23K carry markedly fewer records than the dominant clusters despite process adjacency — a targeted claim search here can confirm how open that space actually is.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions on EBM post-processing patents
This corpus groups such patents primarily under the B22F powder-metallurgy and C22C alloys IPC subclasses, which together hold the largest share of the 2,887 families tracked here. Most of these filings tie a specific post-build densification step, typically hot isostatic pressing, to a resulting alloy microstructure or mechanical property. Filing in this specific combination peaked in 2017 and has declined since, indicating the core parameter combinations are already well claimed rather than newly opening up.
Recent-year momentum data shows several historically active filers, including General Electric and Xerox, recording zero filings in the latest year — a full year-over-year drop from earlier activity. Honeywell shows a single recent filing holding flat, while most other named assignees in this dataset show declining or flat momentum rather than growth. This suggests the field has few actively expanding filers at present, even though a number of large industrial and aerospace names hold foundational patents from the 2015-2018 period.
The overall filing trend argues against it being wide open: activity peaked in 2017 and has fallen steadily toward the present. That said, the technology composition data shows coating and surface-deposition claims (C23C) and welding/brazing claims (B23K) are comparatively thin next to the dominant powder-metallurgy and additive-manufacturing subclasses, so specific adjacent process steps remain less densely claimed than the core build-and-finish sequence. A freedom-to-operate search focused on those thinner subclasses is more likely to surface genuine gaps than one focused on the core alloy claims.
US20160273079A1, assigned to Raytheon Technologies Corporation and filed in 2016, claims a method for producing a superalloy with a controlled crystallographic texture microstructure specifically through electron beam melting process parameters. It blocks processes reaching a similarly textured superalloy via that same EBM-parameter route, not texture control achieved through unrelated methods such as casting. Anyone developing a turbine-component EBM process should check whether their microstructure-control step relies on the same beam-parameter mechanism this filing describes.
The United States receives the largest share of filings in this dataset at 1,086 records, followed by the European Patent Office at 659 and the WIPO/PCT route at 323. Germany, Austria and Canada each show smaller but notable volumes. This distribution points to the US and Europe as the primary jurisdictions for competitive and freedom-to-operate analysis in this technology, with PCT filings indicating applicants seeking broader multi-jurisdiction coverage from the outset.
Research Electron Beam Melting Post-Processing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole electron beam melting post-processing 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.