Footwear Materials Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- 68.9% of all 45 records sit with just five assignees, with a single leader holding 11 filings — concentration, not a level playing field.
- Filing peaked in 2018 at 6 and has since flattened, with 2022 at 4 — this is a steady claim space, not a growth market.
- Additive manufacturing and shoemaking process claims each cover 37.8% of records, while polymer-processing claims (C08J) sit at just 6.7% — the visible white space.
What this patent landscape covers
This landscape covers 45 published records matching footwear midsole, shoe sole material and footwear cushioning claims combined with terms for energy return, supercritical foaming, compression set, lightweight construction and upper-bonding, filed under A43B, C08J and A43B23 between 2015 and mid-2026. The scope is narrow by design: it isolates midsole material and structure claims from the broader footwear category.
Two distinct technical approaches emerge from the composition data: lattice and strut-based midsole geometries built with additive manufacturing, and foam-chemistry approaches built on polymer processing and molding. Filing has been concentrated among a small number of repeat assignees since the window opened, with activity peaking in 2018 and flattening since.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Publication activity across the 45 records in scope peaked in 2018 and has not returned to that level since, while the underlying claim space splits cleanly between geometry-driven manufacturing methods and polymer-chemistry approaches.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Volume moved from 2 filings in 2017 to a peak of 6 in 2018, sat at 4 by the 2022 midpoint, and shows 0 in 2026 — a partial year reflecting the roughly 18-month publication lag rather than a real drop to zero.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
A43B (footwear) covers all 45 records by definition; A43D shoemaking machinery and B33Y additive manufacturing each appear in 37.8% of records, showing that manufacturing-process claims now travel alongside almost every structural midsole claim, while C08J polymer processing sits at only 6.7%.
Shares are the percentage of the 45 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Footwear Materials and Midsole Technology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about footwear materials and midsole technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Method of manufacturing shoe sole material and shoes products made by the same (US4418483A)
A method of manufacturing shoe sole material which is lightweight in addition to having such properties as the conventional rubber sole materials have like wear resistance and elasticity etc., in a simple manner by forming the outsole and midsole layers into one piece by fusion using a mold. The mold comprises mold pieces having on their surface optional pattern and protruding stripes of the same or different pattern carved at equal intervals, and permits a streamline-shaped heel-up on the rear end of the portions which are to become heels, at the same time as forming the midsole and outsole layers into one piece by fusion.Filed 1983-12-06; cited 124 times within this corpus, making it one of the most-referenced records in the dataset despite predating the current filing window.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5279051A | Footwear cushioning spring | 379 |
| 2 | US6964120B2 | Footwear midsole with compressible element in lateral heel area | 195 |
| 3 | US20180271211A1 | Footwear midsole with warped lattice structure and method of making the same | 129 |
| 4 | US4418483A | Method of manufacturing shoe sole material and shoes products made by the same | 124 |
| 5 | US20180271213A1 | Footwear midsole with warped lattice structure and method of making the same | 118 |
| 6 | US20030101620A1 | Shoe cushioning system and related method of manufacture | 84 |
| 7 | US7464489B2 | Footwear cushioning device | 78 |
| 8 | US20070022631A1 | Footwear cushioning device | 66 |
| 9 | US20040221483A1 | Footwear midsole with compressible element in lateral heel area | 61 |
| 10 | US6754982B2 | Shoe cushioning system and related method of manufacture | 56 |
Ranked by citation count within the searched corpus; older filings accumulate more citations by virtue of age, not necessarily current commercial relevance.
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 data signals
Beyond who holds the most patents, the composition and citation data point to where claim scope is settled and where it is still open.
Older structural claims still anchor examination
The most-cited record in this dataset, a footwear cushioning spring, dates back well before the current filing window but still accumulates the deepest citation count. That signals its structural approach is a standing reference point examiners return to, even as newer lattice and foam filings compete for the same claim space.
Structure and manufacturing method are filed together
Additive manufacturing claims (B33Y) and shoemaking machinery claims (A43D) each appear in 37.8% of the 45 records, and largely overlap. A midsole geometry claim filed without a matching process claim is now the exception, not the rule.
Volume has not grown since the 2018 peak
Filing activity reached 6 records in 2018 and had settled to 4 by 2022, a flat-to-declining pattern across the tracked window. Recent years are understated by publication lag, but the multi-year trend still points to a mature rather than expanding field.
Filing activity is heavily US-centred
The United States receives the large majority of filings in this dataset, with Europe, China, WIPO and Australia making up the remainder. That concentration matters for where enforcement risk and design-around opportunity are most likely to be tested first.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to footwear materials and midsole technology, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked field covers 15 companies drawn from the 45 records in scope. Filing is concentrated at the top, with a long tail of single- and double-filing entrants below the tenth position.
One assignee holds nearly a quarter of the dataset
The top-ranked assignee accounts for 11 of the 45 records in scope, well ahead of the rest of the ranked field. That volume typically buys breadth across both the lattice-geometry and heel-cushioning claim clusters rather than a single narrow position.
Five assignees hold more than two-thirds of the field
The top five combined account for 68.9% of all 45 records in scope, with the fifth-ranked assignee alone contributing 3 records. Anyone entering this space is filing against a small set of established portfolios, not a fragmented market.
Filing drops off sharply after the top ten
The tenth-ranked assignee holds just 1 record, and the top ten together account for 88.9% of all 45 records — meaning the remaining ranked assignees below that line are effectively single-filing entrants with narrow, specific claims.
No leading assignee shows fresh filings in the most recent year
Every one of the tracked leading assignees shows zero filings in the latest year, consistent with the roughly 18-month publication lag rather than an actual stop in R&D activity. Momentum reads should be checked again once the current year's records finish publishing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Adidas AG | 0 | — |
| Under Armour Inc. | 0 | — |
| WHATLEY IAN H | 0 | — |
| Wolverine World Wide, Inc. | 0 | — |
| NORTON DANIEL E | 0 | — |
| Nike, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Wolverine Outdoors, Inc. | 0 | — |
| MKUMBA HAFIA SALUM | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis next
This landscape identifies the concentration and the gaps; the next step is testing a specific claim against them.
Check freedom-to-operate on a specific midsole design
Run a targeted search against the leading assignees' claim scope, particularly around lateral-heel compressible elements and lattice geometry, before committing to a construction method.
Start a freedom-to-operate searchDraft into the under-claimed branches
Sensor-integrated layers, forefoot geometry and specific plastic-article molding show low filing density in this dataset — a stronger position than the crowded lattice-heel cluster.
Explore white space with EurekaTrack the leading assignees' next filings
With top-five concentration at 68.9% of all 45 records, watching the leading portfolios for new publications is the fastest way to catch a shift in strategy early.
Set up assignee monitoringCommon questions about footwear midsole patents
Within this dataset of 45 records, one assignee leads with 11 filings, well ahead of the rest of the ranked field. The top five assignees together account for 68.9% of all 45 records, and the top ten account for 88.9%, so the field is concentrated among a small group of repeat filers rather than spread evenly. The ranking itself covers 15 companies total, which is the full set the underlying data returns, not a curated top-50 or top-100 list.
Lattice midsoles are typically claimed under additive manufacturing (B33Y, 37.8% of the 45 records) combined with shoemaking machinery process claims (A43D, also 37.8%), meaning the patent protects both the structure and how it is built layer by layer. Traditional foam midsoles more often sit under polymer processing (C08J, 6.7%) or plastics shaping (B29C, 13.3%), where the claim centres on material composition and molding rather than geometry. The two routes rarely overlap in this dataset, which suggests they are treated as separate technical problems by filers.
US4418483A, filed in 1983, claims a one-piece fusion-molding method for outsole and midsole with a specific heel-up mold geometry and stripe pattern. Its original enforcement term has long expired, so it cannot be asserted against a current product, but with 124 citations it remains a standard prior-art reference that examiners cite against new fusion-molded sole applications. It has little bearing on additive-manufactured or foam-chemistry approaches, since those use different construction methods entirely.
The thinnest claimed branches in this dataset are B29L (specific plastic products, 6.7% of 45 records) and C08J (polymer processing, also 6.7%), both far below the A43D/B33Y pairing that each cover 37.8% of records. Sensor-integrated or biomechanical midsoles, falling under A61B, sit at only 11.1%. These lower-density areas are where a specific, well-drafted claim is less likely to run into a wall of existing prior art compared with the crowded lattice-geometry and heel-cushioning space.
Filing activity in this dataset peaked in 2018 at 6 records and had fallen back to 4 by the 2022 midpoint, indicating a flat-to-declining trend rather than sustained growth. The most recent years understate true activity because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures will rise as records catch up. Even accounting for that lag, the pattern across the whole window points to a mature, steady claim space rather than a fast-expanding one.
Research Footwear Materials and Midsole Technology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole footwear materials and midsole technology 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.