Epoxy Resin Scale-Up Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- Filing peaked in 2018 and has not recovered: the yearly count has trailed off toward zero, suggesting the core process claims for continuous polymerization and reactive extrusion were staked out early and the field has cooled rather than accelerated.
- Condensation chemistry dominates the claim space: all 126 families sit under C08G, with C08L compositions layered on top of three-quarters of them — additive and formulation claims, not the base reaction, are where most of the recent activity concentrates.
- Co-filing is rare and clustered: only nine co-assignee pairs exist across the whole set, and the strongest ones are supplier-partner pairings rather than broad industry consortia, which points to isolated bilateral R&D rather than shared standards work.
Filing growth compares 2021 (1 records) with 2024 (2) — 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 126 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families at the intersection of epoxy resin chemistry and process scale-up — continuous polymerization, reactive extrusion, and resin manufacturing scale-up specifically, rather than epoxy formulation in general. The search restricts to records whose title, abstract or claims name both an epoxy resin term and a scale-up process term, filtered to the IPC classes covering condensation polymer reactions and chemical/physical process apparatus. That combination narrows a very large parent field (epoxy chemistry) down to the subset of filings that actually address how the material is made at volume, not just what it is made of.
Coverage runs from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with 126 published families in total. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend line will understate real filing activity — treat the tail of the chart as a floor, not a ceiling.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 126 families: when the claims were filed, and which IPC subclasses they were filed under. Read together they show a field that staked its ground early and has since layered formulation and coating claims on top of a fixed reaction core.
A single peak, then decline
Annual filings rose to a peak of 6 in 2018 and have fallen since, with the midpoint year of the window showing no filings at all. That shape is consistent with a technology whose core process claims were established in the mid-2010s and have not needed re-filing — new entrants would be building on, or around, a settled base rather than opening new ground.
Condensation chemistry with formulation layered on top
Every family in the set carries a C08G condensation-polymer classification, and 75 of the 126 also carry C08L (polymer compositions) — meaning most filings pair a process claim with a formulation claim. Smaller but consistent counts in C09D (coatings), C08K (additives) and C09J (adhesives) show where the resin ends up being applied, while H05K (printed circuits) marks a narrower electronics-packaging use case.
Shares are the percentage of the 126 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Epoxy Resin Scale-Up and Mass Production with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about epoxy resin scale-up and mass production and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records anchoring this space
US6770691B2 — Curable epoxy resin compositions and the cured residues thereof
A cured composition is the cured residue of a curable composition including (a) an epoxy resin essentially free of bromine atoms, a curing agent for the epoxy resin, (b) a flame retardant additive that is the condensation product of (i) a brominated phenol or a mixture of brominated phenols with (ii) a cyanuric halide; and (c) a thermoplastic resin. The preferred epoxy resin is a mixture of an epoxy resin with less than 2 glycidyl ether groups per molecule and an epoxy resin that has greater than 2 glycidyl ether groups per molecule.Filed by SABIC Innovative Plastics IP B.V., granted 2004-08-03 — a bromine-free flame-retardant epoxy composition that predates the current scale-up filing cluster by over a decade.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5962093A | Thermally stable polyetheramines | 190 |
| 2 | WO2003066704A1 | Oligomeric chain extenders for processing, post−processing and recycling of condensation polymers, synthesis,… | 189 |
| 3 | US20070052131A1 | Method of producing a weld-cut sealing/heat-shrinkable packaging film formed of a polyethylene terephthalate-… | 57 |
| 4 | US20090192265A1 | Curable composition | 32 |
| 5 | JP2004155176A | Polyethylene terephthalate polyester melt bonding film and its manufacturing process | 31 |
| 6 | CN103205224A | 一种丙烯酸酯乳液复膜胶及其制备方法和应用 | 28 |
| 7 | EP0921158A2 | Poly(phenylene ether) thermoset compositions | 28 |
| 8 | US6387990B1 | Curable epoxy resin compositions with brominated triazine flame retardants | 25 |
| 9 | US5965673A | Epoxy-terminated prepolymer of polyepoxide and diamine with curing agent | 25 |
| 10 | US5198497A | Polyolefin, rubber and eva-maleic anhydride terpolymer blend | 25 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to be cited — read this as a map of technical influence, not of current commercial 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.
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 data implies for a filing or freedom-to-operate decision
Three read-throughs from the trend and composition data, aimed at the questions a technical or IP lead actually has to answer before committing R&D budget.
The rush is over, not the field
A single peak followed by decline usually means the obvious process configurations are claimed and defensible, and remaining filers are picking off narrower formulation or additive variants rather than the base reaction.
Process and formulation claims travel together
Most applicants are not filing a bare process claim; they pair continuous polymerization or reactive extrusion steps with a specific composition, which narrows what a competitor can design around without also avoiding the composition claim.
R&D is bilateral, not consortium-driven
The strongest co-filing pairs look like supplier-customer or corporate-affiliate relationships rather than industry-wide standards efforts, so licensing conversations in this space are likely to be one-to-one.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to epoxy resin scale-up and mass production, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Clariant International Ltd. | BASF SE | 5 |
| Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd. | Sumitomo Chemical Industries, Ltd. | 5 |
| Johnson Polymer, Inc. | Clariant International Ltd. | 4 |
| Johnson Polymer, Inc. | Johnson Polymer, Inc. | 2 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | THIBAULT RAYMOND J | 1 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | OCCHIELLO ERNESTO | 1 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | BECKERDITE JOHN | 1 |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | AGUIRRE VARGAS FABIO | 1 |
Pairings cluster around a small number of repeat partnerships rather than a broad network — useful context if you are scouting for a licensing counterpart rather than a standards body.
Who holds the ground, and where it is still open
The assignee ranking (rendered separately) sits on top of a filing base that has gone quiet across every named party in the most recent year — a sign the leading holders are maintaining existing positions rather than actively expanding them.
No one is currently pushing forward
Every assignee with recent-year momentum data shows zero filings in the latest tracked year, consistent with the overall post-2018 decline. That flat signal across multiple named holders — rather than one laggard — suggests the slowdown is field-wide, not company-specific.
Europe and the US lead filing venues
Europe and the United States between them account for the bulk of receiving-office activity, with Japan a clear third. Canada, WIPO/PCT and Austria trail well behind, indicating most applicants are protecting home or primary-export markets rather than filing broadly.
A few repeat partnerships anchor the network
The densest co-assignee relationships involve the same handful of organisations appearing together across five shared families each, rather than a wide web of one-off collaborations — a small, stable set of working relationships rather than an open ecosystem.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Johnson Polymer, Inc. | 0 | — |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| Clariant International Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | 0 | — |
| Toray Industries, Inc. | 0 | — |
| The Dow Chemical Company | 0 | — |
| Kaneka Corporation | 0 | — |
| BASF SE | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The trend and composition data point to a narrow set of next questions, depending on whether you're scoping a filing, a freedom-to-operate review, or a partner search.
Check freedom-to-operate on formulation variants
Since most families pair a process claim with a C08L composition claim, a new filing needs to clear both layers — not just show a novel process step.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaMap the quiet leaders before they refile
Zero recent-year filings across the top assignees doesn't mean abandonment; it may mean a refresh is due. Watching for renewed activity early gives more response time.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaScope the under-claimed branches
Thin coverage in electronics-packaging and laminate-specific process claims suggests room to file narrowly and defensibly rather than contest the dense C08G core.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about epoxy resin scale-up patents
The assignee ranking behind this dataset (126 patent families total) is topped by a small group of chemical and materials companies rather than a single dominant holder. Ownership is spread across process specialists and their supplier partners, with co-filing pairs like Clariant International Ltd. and BASF appearing repeatedly. No single assignee shows recent-year filing activity, so the current leaderboard reflects positions built up before the field's 2018 peak rather than active expansion today.
Filing activity in this dataset peaked at 6 families in 2018 and has trailed toward zero by 2026, with the midpoint year showing no filings at all. That pattern typically means the core process configurations — continuous polymerization routes, reactive extrusion setups — were claimed early and have proven durable, leaving less open ground for new base-process patents. It does not mean the underlying manufacturing technology stopped being used; production scale-up can mature and stabilise well after the patent activity around it cools.
Both terms appear as scale-up process qualifiers in this dataset's search criteria, and both are typically claimed alongside a C08G condensation-polymer reaction and, often, a C08L composition. Continuous polymerization claims tend to describe the reactor or flow configuration that keeps the epoxy reaction running without batch interruption, while reactive extrusion claims describe polymerization occurring during, or immediately supported by, an extrusion step. In practice the two are frequently paired with different downstream compositions — coatings, adhesives or laminates — so the process term alone doesn't tell you the full claim scope; check the composition classification alongside it.
The IPC composition data shows dense coverage in C08G (all 126 families) and C08L (75 of 126), but much thinner coverage in adjacent application classes like H05K (printed circuits, 15 families) and B32B (laminates, 15 families). That gap suggests process-specific claims tailored to electronics-grade or laminate-specific epoxy scale-up are less crowded than the general formulation space. A first claim there would likely combine a named continuous process step with the specific downstream application's performance requirement, rather than restating the general polymerization reaction.
Not necessarily. The most-cited records in this dataset, including US5962093A and WO2003066704A1, carry citation counts well above 150, but citation counts inside a searched patent corpus mechanically favour older filings simply because they've had more years to accumulate citations. High citation counts are a reasonable signal of technical influence — later filers built on these ideas — but they say nothing directly about whether the underlying patent is still in force, licensed, or commercially active today. Check legal status and expiry separately before treating a highly-cited patent as a current blocker.
Research Epoxy Resin Scale-Up and Mass Production in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole epoxy resin scale-up and mass production 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.