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 →Filing growth compares 2021 (41 records) with 2024 (20) — 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 1,412 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
This dataset tracks patent families where epoxy resin or epoxy formulation claims intersect with durability-specific language — thermal aging, hydrolytic stability, UV durability, long-term reliability — inside IPC classes covering polymer compositions, condensation resins and material testing. That intersection matters: a generic epoxy composition patent is not counted here unless its claims or description tie the chemistry to a durability or aging behaviour.
1,412 patent families sit in the dataset, spanning filings from 2015 through the 2026 cutoff. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the last one to two years in any trend chart will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be — read the recent decline with that lag in mind, not as a final verdict.
Two views of the same 1,412 families: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filings rose to 41 in 2018, sat near 30 at the 2022 midpoint, and have fallen since — a pattern consistent with a technology area that filled its core claim space early and has been filing incrementally around the edges since.
C08G (condensation polymers) and C08L (polymer compositions) carry the bulk of records, with C08K (additives), C09D (coatings) and H01L (semiconductor devices) forming a second tier — durability claims are written primarily against resin chemistry and formulation additives, with coatings and electronics packaging as the largest application-side draws.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,412 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about epoxy resin reliability and durability and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA hardener for an epoxy resin includes an accelerator having a tetraalkylphosphonium salt. The tetraalkylphosphonium salt has the following formula: P(R', R'', R''', R'''')4+, X-, where R', R'', R''', R'''' are individually-selected alkyls ranging from C2 to C20, X- is an anion such as Hal-, ClO4-, RCO2(Ac-), MX'6-; where M is P, As, Sb; and X- is Hal-. The hardener, an application thereof in the fabrication of an epoxy resin, the epoxy resin itself, and a method for curing an epoxy resin compound, create a material system that is suitable for the field of optoelectronics.Filed by an individual inventor rather than a corporate assignee — a reminder that influential claim positions in this space are not confined to the major filers.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4069055A | Photocurable epoxy compositions containing group Va onium salts | 1,296 |
| 2 | US4058401A | Photocurable compositions containing group via aromatic onium salts | 563 |
| 3 | EP0012463A1 | Thermosetting resinous binder compositions, their preparation, and use as coating materials | 297 |
| 4 | US4212781A | Modified epoxy resins, processes for making and using same and substrates coated therewith | 291 |
| 5 | US4138255A | Photo-curing method for epoxy resin using group VIa onium salt | 286 |
| 6 | US6121398A | High modulus polymers and composites from plant oils | 254 |
| 7 | US4247439A | Water-borne coating composition made from epoxy resin, polymeric acid and tertiary amine | 249 |
| 8 | US3975346A | Boron-containing, quaternary ammonium salt-containing resin compositions | 246 |
| 9 | US5296525A | Aqueous coating compositions | 194 |
| 10 | US5863970A | Epoxy resin composition with cycloaliphatic epoxy-functional siloxane | 160 |
Citation counts inside any searched corpus skew toward older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations — treat this table as a map of foundational influence, not of current competitive priority.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
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 →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 →Four read-throughs of the filing, citation and co-filing data — useful for deciding where a freedom-to-operate search needs to go deeper.
2018's peak of 41 families has not been matched since; by the 2022 midpoint annual filing had already dropped to 30, and the decline has continued. Publication lag means the last year or two will fill in somewhat, but the trend direction is not in doubt.
Three out of every four families in this dataset touch C08G condensation-polymer claims, and nearly two-thirds touch C08L compositions. New formulation claims in either subclass are filing into dense prior art.
Every assignee with tracked recent-year momentum — including one at -100% YoY — shows zero filings in the latest year. That does not mean the technology is abandoned; it means current activity is coming from filers outside the historical top ranks, and a leaderboard built on cumulative counts will miss them.
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear across 1,412 families, and the strongest pair is a corporate-subsidiary relationship rather than an external partnership. Joint development filing is not how this field typically moves.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to epoxy resin reliability and durability, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| TOSHIBA KEMIKARU KK | Toshiba Chemical Corporation | 42 |
| E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company | RAJENDRAN GOVINDASAMY PARAMASIVAM | 7 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | WILMOT NATHAN | 4 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | DUGGAL RAJAT | 4 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | SHAH HARSHAD M | 2 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | SHAH HARSHAD | 2 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | SCHROCK ALAN K | 2 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | SCHROCK ALAN | 2 |
The strongest co-assignee link ties a company to its own subsidiary under two name renderings, not to an outside partner — cross-company joint filing is the exception here, not the rule.
The named assignees below built the foundational claim positions in this space. Their recent-year momentum has gone flat, which changes what a new entrant needs to check before filing.
Assignees including General Electric Company, Dow Global Technologies LLC, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and Shell International Research Maatschappij B.V. built large historical positions but show no filings in the latest tracked year. Their granted claims remain live prior art regardless of current filing pace.
TOSHIBA KEMIKARU KK and Toshiba Chemical Corporation form the strongest co-assignee pair in the dataset at 42 shared filings, reflecting a single filer recorded under two name variants — worth deduplicating before drawing rank conclusions from raw assignee counts.
The United States, European and Japanese offices together receive the large majority of filings, with WIPO PCT, China and Canada trailing well behind. A freedom-to-operate check limited to these three offices will catch most of the enforceable claim density.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| TOSHIBA KEMIKARU KK | 0 | — |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | 0 | -100% |
| E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company | 0 | — |
| Shell International Research Maatschappij B.V. | 0 | — |
| Toshiba Chemical Corporation | 0 | — |
| Huntsman Advanced Materials Licensing (Switzerland) GmbH | 0 | — |
| The Dow Chemical Company | 0 | — |
The landscape data points to specific follow-up work rather than a single conclusion.
C08G and C08L carry the bulk of granted claims. Any new formulation work should be checked against both before drafting, not just the durability-specific literature.
Search C08G/C08L prior art →Every historically leading assignee shows zero recent filings. Identifying the current active filers requires looking past cumulative rank.
Map recent filers →Adhesive, coating and polymer-processing overlaps show lighter claim density than the core resin chemistry. These are candidate areas for a first-mover filing.
Explore white space →The filing trend in this dataset peaked at 41 families in 2018 and has fallen since, reaching 7 in the most recent partial year. This pattern typically means the core, most obvious claim territory around durability chemistry — thermal aging additives, hydrolytic stabilisers, standard curing agents — was staked out early, leaving later filers to work smaller, more specific niches. It does not mean epoxy durability research has stopped; publication lags filing by about 18 months, so the last one to two years will always understate true activity, and demand for reliable epoxy systems in electronics and coatings remains steady.
The dataset's historical leaders include large chemicals and electronics groups, several of which appear under both English and Chinese/Japanese name renderings in the records. Notably, every one of these tracked leading assignees shows zero filings in the most recent year, meaning cumulative rank and current activity are not the same thing. Anyone assessing competitive risk should look at recent-year filers separately from all-time leaders, since the two lists can diverge sharply in a mature filing area like this one.
C08G (condensation polymers) and C08L (polymer compositions) carry the largest share of records in this dataset, together touching the great majority of the 1,412 families tracked. C08K (polymer additives), C09D (coatings) and H01L (semiconductor devices) form a meaningful second tier, reflecting epoxy's role in encapsulants and protective coatings. A search strategy that omits C08G or C08L will miss most of the relevant prior art in this field.
Based on IPC composition and claim density, sub-areas that overlap adhesives (C09J), coatings (C09D) and polymer processing (C08J) carry comparatively lighter claim density than the core condensation and composition chemistry in C08G and C08L. Hydrolytic-stability test protocols and UV-durability additive synergy claims specifically also appear less crowded. These are reasonable starting points for scoping a new filing, though a full clearance search is still required before relying on any apparent gap.
US20030214073A1 claims a tetraalkylphosphonium salt accelerator for epoxy hardeners, specified by a defined formula covering a range of alkyl chain lengths and anion types, for use in optoelectronic material systems. Anyone formulating a phosphonium-salt-accelerated epoxy hardener for optoelectronics should check their specific salt structure and anion choice against this claim's boundaries. Because the claim is written around a general formula rather than one specific compound, working around it typically means choosing an accelerator chemistry outside the phosphonium-salt family rather than merely varying the alkyl substituents.
Go past this page: query the whole epoxy resin reliability and durability 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.