Formability Simulation Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- A single assignee leads with 57 records while the fifth-ranked company holds just 7 and the tenth holds 3 — a steep drop-off rather than a gradual tail.
- Sheet-metal working claims dominate B21D appears in 57.5% of the 179 records in scope, more than one and a half times the share of the next-largest class, G06F digital data processing at 37.4%.
- Filing has already peaked and cooled activity rose to 13 records in 2022 before falling off, though the most recent years are understated by publication lag.
What this landscape covers
This review covers 179 published records at the intersection of forming simulation, springback prediction and formability analysis, combined with the material models, friction coefficients, mesh sensitivity, compensation loops and validation trials that turn a simulation into a production-line decision. The scope spans 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, so the search captures both the physics-modelling side of the field and the digital-process-control side that governs how a die design actually gets compensated for springback before it is cut.
The technology composition splits cleanly between mechanical claims on sheet-metal working (B21D) and software claims on digital data processing (G06F), with a smaller but persistent presence of control-systems claims (G05B) and material-testing claims (G01N). That split matters for freedom-to-operate work: a filing that only touches the simulation software may sit outside a competitor's die-tooling claims, and vice versa.
Filing trend and classification mix
Two views of the same 179-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings climbed from 3 records in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2022, then declined toward the 2026 cut-off. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the drop in the most recent years overstates any real slowdown — the 2025 and 2026 figures will keep filling in as those applications publish.
IPC subclass distribution
B21D (sheet-metal working) appears in 57.5% of the 179 records in scope, and G06F (digital data processing) in 37.4% — together they anchor the field. G05B (control systems, 19.6%) and G01N (material analysis and testing, 14.0%) form a second tier tied to process control and validation. Coating (C23C, 9.5%), laminates (B32B, 4.5%), presses (B30B, 3.4%) and extrusion (B21C, 2.8%) are minority classes. Records can carry more than one class, so these shares add up to well over 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 179 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Formability Simulation and Springback with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about formability simulation and springback and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in the field
Determination Of Failure In Sheet Metal Forming Simulation Using Isotropic Metal Failure Criteria
Systems and methods of determining structural failure in a computer simulation of manufacturing a sheet metal part are disclosed. A FEA model defined for a sheet metal manufacturing procedure includes a plurality of shell elements representing the sheet metal blank, configured to emulate anisotropic material properties. Numerically-simulated structural behaviors, including equivalent strain and plastic flow direction during forming, are obtained by running the FEA model through a metal forming simulation application module.Filed by Livermore Software Technology Corporation, published 2014-01-16.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20090177417A1 | Fracture prediction method, device, a program arrangement and computer-accessible medium therefor | 74 |
| 2 | US5919012A | Method of high speed cutting mold and ultra-high speed milling machine | 40 |
| 3 | US7130714B1 | Method of predicting springback in hydroforming | 32 |
| 4 | US20040073323A1 | System, method, and device for designing a die to stamp metal parts to an exact final dimension | 32 |
| 5 | US20060201229A1 | System, Method, and Device for Designing a Die to Stamp Metal Parts to an Exact Final Dimension | 27 |
| 6 | JP2006167766A | Press forming system | 25 |
| 7 | US6205366B1 | Method of applying the radial return method to the anisotropic hardening rule of plasticity to sheet metal fo… | 25 |
| 8 | US6009378A | Method of applying an anisotropic hardening rule of plasticity to sheet metal forming processes | 25 |
| 9 | CN109684753A | 一种管材弯曲回弹角逆向预测和补偿方法 | 23 |
| 10 | EP1688196A1 | Press forming device, press forming method, computer program, and recording medium | 23 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later filings, not as a measure 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 numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the classification mix are read together.
One filer, then a steep drop
The leading assignee holds 57 of the 179 records in scope, while fifth place holds only 7 and tenth place just 3. That is not a gradual tail — it is a single dominant filer sitting well above a group of much smaller programmes, which changes how a freedom-to-operate search should be weighted.
Tooling claims outweigh software claims
Sheet-metal working claims (B21D) cover more of the corpus than digital data processing claims (G06F), even though simulation is a software-heavy activity. That suggests much of the claim value has been captured at the die and press level rather than purely in the algorithm.
Activity has already cooled from its peak
Filings rose from 3 in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2022, then declined toward the 2026 cut-off. Given the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, the most recent two years understate true activity rather than confirming a real slowdown.
Joint filing is rare and concentrated
Only three co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest of them links two of the largest steel-industry filers at 30 shared records. Outside that pairing, joint filing activity is minimal, which points to mostly independent in-house programmes rather than a web of cross-licensing.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to formability simulation and springback, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is still open
The ranked leaders are dominated by steel producers and automakers, with software and research entrants filing in smaller numbers. Recent-year momentum across the named leaders shows no filer adding new records in the latest year, consistent with the publication lag affecting the whole set rather than a single company slowing down.
A steel producer holds the largest single position
The top-ranked assignee's 57 records dwarf the rest of the ranking, built on decades of die-design and springback-compensation filings tied to automotive sheet steel. Its joint filings with other large steel producers form the strongest co-assignee link in the dataset.
OEMs file selectively around production validation
Automakers appear in the ranking but well below the leading steel and materials filers, consistent with OEMs patenting around validation trials and compensation loops for their own tooling rather than building broad simulation portfolios.
Simulation vendors and universities hold smaller, focused positions
Entities such as commercial simulation software firms and university research bodies appear as individual filers rather than volume filers, suggesting their value sits in specific algorithmic claims rather than broad tooling coverage.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Nippon Steel Corporation | 0 | — |
| JFE Steel Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Arcelor France SA | 0 | — |
| NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL CORP | 0 | — |
| Ford Global Technologies, LLC | 0 | — |
| Usinor SA | 0 | — |
| Honda Motor Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| National University Corporation Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The ranking and the classification mix point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio building, or spotting an entry point.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's cluster
With one assignee holding 57 of 179 records, any new sheet-metal forming filing should be checked specifically against that portfolio before checking the rest of the ranking.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in EurekaProbe the under-claimed branches
Adaptive mesh refinement, multi-material laminate models and real-time friction calibration sit below the core B21D/G06F density and may offer room for a first-mover claim.
Explore white space in EurekaWatch for the publication-lag catch-up
The apparent 2022 peak and subsequent decline will revise upward as 2025-2026 filings publish; re-run the trend query periodically rather than treating the current dip as final.
Track filing trends in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
One assignee leads the ranked leaders with 57 records, well ahead of the fifth-placed company at 7 and the tenth-placed company at 3. This is a steep drop-off rather than a gradual tail, so a single filer's portfolio carries disproportionate weight in any competitive or freedom-to-operate review. The leader's position is reinforced by joint filings with other large steel-industry assignees, which is the strongest co-assignee relationship found in the dataset.
Filings rose from 3 records in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2022, then declined toward the 2026 data cut-off. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years understate real activity rather than proving a genuine slowdown. A clean growth-rate figure is not computable from this dataset once that lag is accounted for, so treat the recent dip as provisional.
The dominant class is B21D, sheet-metal working, present in 57.5% of the 179 records in scope, followed by G06F digital data processing at 37.4%. Smaller but consistent shares go to G05B control systems (19.6%) and G01N material testing (14.0%), with coating, laminates, presses and extrusion appearing in single-digit shares. Because a record can carry multiple classes, these figures add up to more than 100% and should not be treated as a partition of the whole set.
This record, filed by Livermore Software Technology Corporation, claims a method for determining structural failure in a sheet-metal forming simulation using an FEA model with shell elements configured for anisotropic material properties and isotropic failure criteria. Anyone building a forming-failure simulation that uses a comparable shell-element FEA approach with equivalent strain and plastic flow direction outputs should review its claim scope directly rather than assuming it is narrow. It sits among the most-cited records in this field, indicating it has shaped a number of later filings.
The classification mix shows dense coverage in core sheet-metal working and digital-simulation claims but thinner coverage in specific sub-areas such as adaptive mesh refinement for springback compensation loops, multi-material laminate formability models, and real-time friction-coefficient calibration. These sit adjacent to the dense B21D/G06F cluster rather than outside the field entirely, which is what makes them practical entry points rather than speculative ones. Confirming white space claims requires a dedicated freedom-to-operate search beyond this overview.
Research Formability Simulation and Springback in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole formability simulation and springback 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.