Forming, Casting & Forging Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- Filings grew 29% from 2021 to 2024, climbing from 31 to a peak of 40 records in 2024, the last year the data can treat as complete.
- The top 5 assignees hold 27.5% of all 834 records, and the top 10 hold 36.9% — concentrated but with a long tail of single- and low-filing entrants behind them.
- Metal casting and foundry moulding dominate the class mix, at 29.1% and 21.7% of records respectively, while defect detection and production control remain comparatively thin.
Filing growth compares 2021 (31 records) with 2024 (40) — 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 834 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset spans 834 published records filed between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off, drawn from search terms combining core process categories — metal casting, metal forging and manufacturing forming — with control-and-quality terms such as process temperature, tool geometry, material feed, dimensional tolerance, defect detection and production control. The result is a cross-section of hardware and process patents rather than a single narrow claim family: it captures foundry moulding, powder metallurgy, heat treatment and alloy chemistry alongside the inspection and control systems that increasingly sit on top of them.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend chart are still filling in and should not be read as a slowdown. The concentration and technology-mix figures below use the full 834-record set as their denominator throughout, and every share is quoted against that same base.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 834 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how those records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, the class shares below sum to well over 100% of the record total — that is expected and is not an error in the chart.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings rose from 12 in 2017 to a peak of 40 in 2024, including the +29% climb from 31 filings in 2021 to 40 in 2024. Treat 2025 and 2026 as undercounted rather than declining, given the typical 18-month publication lag.
IPC subclass distribution
B22D (metal casting) and B22C (foundry moulding) lead at 29.1% and 21.7% of the 834 records respectively. Ceramics and refractories (C04B), plastics shaping (B29C) and heat treatment (C21D) each sit near 11%, with alloys (C22C), powder metallurgy (B22F) and non-ferrous treatment (C22F) each in the 8-9% range — a broad base rather than a single dominant sub-field.
Shares are the percentage of the 834 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Forming, Casting & Forging Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about forming, casting & forging patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
US20210150700A1 — Defect detection device and method
Filed by UNITX, INC. in 2021, this record describes a defect detection device combining an image-capturing component, a motion component to manipulate the object or camera, and a computing device that builds a probability matrix of defect likelihood across multiple imaging poses, then subdivides that matrix into submatrices for finer-grained defect scoring.Abstract text is drawn directly from the published filing.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5204055A | Three-dimensional printing techniques | 2,004 |
| 2 | US5387380A | Three-dimensional printing techniques | 1,324 |
| 3 | US5340656A | Three-dimensional printing techniques | 719 |
| 4 | EP0431924A2 | Three-dimensional printing techniques | 411 |
| 5 | US6036777A | Powder dispensing apparatus using vibration | 393 |
| 6 | US20100003904A1 | High speed flat lapping platen, raised islands and abrasive beads | 381 |
| 7 | EP0431924B1 | Three-dimensional printing techniques | 343 |
| 8 | US20110189440A1 | Systems, Devices, and/or Methods for Manufacturing Castings | 289 |
| 9 | US5284695A | Method of producing high-temperature parts by way of low-temperature sintering | 259 |
| 10 | US9315663B2 | Systems, devices, and/or methods for manufacturing castings | 201 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations inside this corpus — read them as a signal of historical influence on the field, not of which technology matters most today.
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 concentration, class mix and receiving-office data are read together: a moderately concentrated leadership tier, a technology base still anchored in traditional casting and moulding, and inspection technology that has not yet drawn the same filing density as the core process claims it monitors.
Leadership is real but not locked in
The top 5 assignees combine for 27.5% of all 834 records and the top 10 for 36.9%, leaving nearly two-thirds of filings spread across the remaining ranked entrants. That is concentration without a dominant single owner, which leaves room for a well-drafted claim to compete rather than merely design around an incumbent.
Casting and moulding still anchor the field
Metal casting (B22D) and foundry moulding (B22C) together touch roughly half of all records when counted separately, confirming that core process claims — not downstream inspection or control software — remain where most filing activity sits. Heat treatment, alloys and powder metallurgy each hold high single-digit to low double-digit shares, forming a secondary tier worth watching for cross-class claims.
Growth is recent and real, not a historical peak
Filings climbed from 31 in 2021 to 40 in 2024, a 29% rise across three years and the dataset's current peak. Several of the assignees with the largest historical filing counts show no activity in the latest tracked year, suggesting the growth is coming from newer or less-established filers rather than incumbents scaling up.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to forming, casting & forging patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gate sits
The ranked leaders combine legacy foundry and industrial-gas suppliers with large diversified manufacturers; several of the historically largest filers show zero activity in the most recent tracked year, which is more likely a publication-lag artifact than a genuine exit. Newer, more specialised filers appear to be driving the recent growth in filing volume.
A clear leader, not a runaway one
The top-ranked assignee holds 106 records, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 19 and tenth place at 15. The gap between first and fifth is steep, but the gap from fifth to tenth is comparatively shallow, indicating a mid-tier of active filers rather than a sharp cliff.
Filing activity is US-centred with strong EPO and PCT presence
The United States receives the largest share of filings at 259 records, followed by the European Patent Office at 135 and WIPO/PCT routes at 74. Japan, India and Canada each register meaningful but smaller volumes, pointing to a field that is filed broadly but anchored in US and European prosecution.
Collaboration is limited and mostly bilateral
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pairings involve just two or three shared records. Co-filing is not a major feature of this field — most entities file independently, which makes freedom-to-operate analysis more tractable since cross-licensing entanglements are rare.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| United Engineering Company | 0 | — |
| Lanxide Technology Company | 0 | — |
| Foseco International Limited | 0 | -100% |
| Honeywell International Inc. | 0 | — |
| Micro Systems, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Bitzer Kuehlmaschinenbau GmbH | 0 | — |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 0 | — |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The figures above establish the shape of the field; turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means drilling into specific claims and specific assignees.
Map the white space precisely
Under-claimed branches like defect-probability scoring and dimensional-tolerance feedback loops sit next to dense core casting claims — a targeted search inside those subclasses will show exactly how thin the prior art actually is.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the recent filers, not just the leaders
The historical leaders show little recent activity while overall filings keep climbing, meaning the interesting competitive signal is in the newer entrants rather than the top of the ranking.
Monitor emerging assignees in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The assignee ranking for this dataset covers 100 companies, with the top-ranked assignee holding 106 of the 834 records in scope. The top 5 assignees combined account for 27.5% of all records and the top 10 for 36.9%, which means leadership is real but far from total — well over half of all filings sit outside the ten most active companies. Anyone assessing freedom to operate should look at both the concentrated top tier and the long tail, since a blocking claim can come from either.
Filings grew from 31 in 2021 to a peak of 40 in 2024, a 29% increase over that three-year span, and 2024 is the most recent year the dataset can treat as complete. The 2025 and 2026 figures appear lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than an actual drop in activity. Based on the complete years, the trend through 2024 is upward, not flat or declining.
Metal casting (IPC class B22D) and foundry moulding (B22C) are the two largest categories, covering 29.1% and 21.7% of the 834 records respectively. Ceramics and refractories, plastics shaping and heat treatment each sit near 11%, while alloys, powder metallurgy and non-ferrous metal treatment each hold roughly 8-9% shares. Because records often carry more than one IPC class, these figures overlap rather than sum to 100%, reflecting how process, material and inspection claims frequently combine in a single filing.
Defect detection and production-control terms appear in the search criteria but the core IPC classes tied to casting, moulding and heat treatment carry far more filing density than inspection-specific technology. Sub-areas such as multi-pose image capture for casting inspection, in-line defect probability scoring, and dimensional-tolerance feedback into tool geometry show comparatively thin coverage relative to the core process classes. A first claim in these areas would likely pair a specific sensing or scoring method with a specific casting or forging process step, rather than claiming inspection in the abstract.
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the entire dataset, and the strongest pairings involve just two or three jointly held records. This indicates that most entities in this field file independently rather than through joint ventures or shared research programmes. For competitive intelligence purposes, that means tracking individual assignees is more informative than trying to map alliance networks, since alliances are not a significant structural feature here.
Research Forming, Casting & Forging Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole forming, casting & forging patent landscape 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.