Friction Stir Welding Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- Filings peaked in 2020 at 82 and have declined since, with 2026 activity (11, partial) understated by the usual 18-month publication lag but consistent with a cooling curve rather than a spike.
- B23K carries 1,242 of 1,247 records meaning almost every filing sits inside the core welding/soldering/brazing subclass, while alloy (C22C), coating (C23C) and heat-treatment (C21D) crossovers stay in the double digits.
- The oldest cited records still dominate influence with foundational tool and process patents from the mid-1990s each cited well over 150 times, a sign that pioneering claim scope is still the reference point examiners return to.
Filing growth compares 2021 (59 records) with 2024 (62) — 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 1,247 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the friction stir welding patent record shows
Friction stir welding turns metal joining into a solid-state plastic-flow process: a rotating tool traverses the joint line, softening and mechanically stirring the material without melting it. The patent record for this dataset, 1,247 families filed between 2015 and 2026, sits almost entirely inside B23K (welding, soldering and brazing), with much smaller but consistent overlap into alloy composition, coatings, layered products and heat treatment. That concentration tells a simple story: the contested ground is the tool and the process window, not the base materials being joined.
Filing volume rose through the late 2010s, peaked in 2020, and has trended down since — a pattern more consistent with a maturing claim space than an emerging one. Receiving-office data shows the United States, Europe and China as the three largest filing destinations, with India and WIPO PCT filings also substantial, pointing to a technology that is contested across manufacturing hubs rather than concentrated in one jurisdiction.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Trend lines and technology mix
The filing trend and IPC composition below frame where claim density has built up and where it is comparatively thin.
A 2020 peak followed by a multi-year decline
Filings grew from 60 in 2017 to a peak of 82 in 2020, held near the midpoint at 65 in 2022, and have since fallen toward 11 in the most recent (partial) year. Because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, the last one to two years will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be — but the multi-year decline from the 2020 peak predates that lag effect and looks like a real cooling of new filing activity rather than a reporting artefact.
Welding claims dominate; supporting subclasses stay narrow
B23K appears in 1,242 of 1,247 records, effectively defining the dataset. The next largest subclasses — C22C alloys (85), B29C plastics shaping (53), C23C coatings (51), B32B laminates (35), C21D heat treatment (27), B22F powder metallurgy (24) and C22F non-ferrous treatment (22) — are all secondary overlaps rather than parallel filing centres, meaning cross-disciplinary claims (e.g., FSW combined with novel coatings or powder-metallurgy feedstock) remain comparatively rare.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,247 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Friction Stir Welding and Processing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about friction stir welding and processing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe patents still shaping freedom to operate
Double-sided friction stir welding method and device for metal sheets (JFE Steel, 2020)
This filing addresses a specific process problem: getting plastic flow uniform through the full sheet thickness when welding from both sides at once, so that welding speed can increase without introducing defects. The claimed method and device pair are aimed at sufficient joint strength and better welding workability rather than a novel tool geometry.Filed by JFE Steel; published 2020-07-09.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5697544A | Adjustable pin for friction stir welding tool | 316 |
| 2 | US5813592A | Friction stir welding | 259 |
| 3 | GB2306366A | Friction stir welding | 210 |
| 4 | WO1995026254A1 | Friction stir welding | 167 |
| 5 | US6648206B2 | Friction stir welding using a superabrasive tool | 166 |
| 6 | US6543671B2 | Apparatus and method for friction stir welding using filler material | 136 |
| 7 | US6299050B1 | Friction stir welding apparatus and method | 134 |
| 8 | US20080251571A1 | Friction stir welding tool having a counterflow pin configuration | 128 |
| 9 | US20030042292A1 | Apparatus and method for friction stir welding using filler material | 124 |
| 10 | US20030075584A1 | Method and apparatus for friction stir welding | 115 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings; treat these as markers of foundational influence, not 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 numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are read against filing dates and citation weight.
Growth has already flattened
The climb from 60 filings in 2017 to a 2020 peak of 82, followed by a slide back down through the 2022 midpoint of 65 toward 11 in the most recent partial year, describes a technology past its filing peak. New entrants filing broad tool or process claims now compete against a well-established prior art base rather than an open field.
Almost everything sits in one subclass
With B23K covering nearly the entire dataset, the meaningful differentiation between filings happens inside welding/joining sub-detail — tool geometry, pin design, process parameters — not across technology categories. Secondary IPC overlaps into alloys, coatings and heat treatment stay in the tens of records, not the hundreds.
Old patents still anchor the field
The most-cited records in this dataset date back to the mid-1990s and each carry well over 150 citations. That concentration of influence in decades-old filings means new applicants are almost always designing around, or building narrowly on top of, a small set of foundational tool and process claims rather than writing on a blank page.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to friction stir welding and processing, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Brigham Young University | PACKER SCOTT | 16 |
| Brigham Young University | FELTER PAUL ALLEN | 16 |
| Brigham Young University | Advanced Metal Products, Inc. | 14 |
| Brigham Young University | SII MegaDiamond, Inc. | 14 |
| Brigham Young University | MegaStir Technologies | 9 |
| Osaka University | Sogo Rolling Stock Manufacturing Co., Ltd. | 7 |
| Osaka University | Furuya Metal Co., Ltd. | 6 |
| MegaStir Technologies | STEEL RUSSELL J | 5 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest links all involve the same university partnering separately with individual inventors and a metal-products company — evidence that most filings in this space are made by a single assignee rather than through joint development.
Who is filing, and where activity has gone quiet
Recent-year momentum data shows a striking pattern: several of the assignees most associated with foundational friction stir welding IP show zero filings in the latest tracked year, several down from prior activity by -100% year-over-year. That does not mean these organisations have exited the field — publication lag means recent filings may not yet be visible — but it does mean the most recent public signal from these assignees is quiet.
Established filers have gone quiet in the public record
Organisations including JFE Steel, Element Six, Boeing, Osaka University and the university most active in co-assigned filings all show zero filings in the most recent tracked year, several with a documented -100% year-over-year drop. This is consistent with either a genuine slowdown or with recent applications not yet published.
Joint filing is the exception, not the norm
A single university anchors the strongest co-assignee links in the dataset, pairing with individual named inventors and one advanced-metal-products company at counts of 14-16 shared families. Outside that cluster, co-filing activity is thin, meaning most competitive intelligence should track single-assignee portfolios rather than alliance structures.
Three offices carry most of the volume
The United States leads with 358 filings, Europe follows at 205, and China at 170, with India (141), WIPO PCT (89) and Canada (53) filling out a still-substantial secondary tier. A freedom-to-operate review limited to one jurisdiction will miss a meaningful share of active claims.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| JFE Steel Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Element Six (UK) Limited | 0 | -100% |
| Brigham Young University | 0 | — |
| MegaStir Technologies | 0 | — |
| The Boeing Company | 0 | — |
| Osaka University | 0 | — |
| Lockheed Martin Corporation | 0 | — |
| Hitachi, Ltd. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next questions depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, whitespace filing, or competitor tracking.
Map claim scope against the founding patents
The highest-cited records from the mid-1990s still anchor tool and process claims across the field. Any new filing in core tool geometry or basic process parameters should be checked against these before drafting.
Explore prior art in EurekaWatch quiet assignees for re-emergence
Several established filers show zero activity in the latest year. Because of publication lag, this is the moment to monitor rather than assume exit — new filings from these organisations may surface over the next 12-18 months.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaTest the under-claimed crossover branches
Coating, powder-metallurgy and polymer crossovers into friction stir processing carry a fraction of the core subclass's filing density. A first claim drafted around one of these intersections faces less crowded prior art.
Run a white space search in EurekaCommon questions about friction stir welding patents
The most-cited records in this dataset date to the mid-1990s and describe the core adjustable-pin tool and the base friction stir welding process itself, each carrying well over 150 citations within this corpus. These early filings function as the reference point that later applicants design around or build narrowly on top of. Because citation counts favour older records in any searched corpus, treat this as a measure of foundational influence rather than a signal that these are the only patents worth checking today.
No. Filings rose from 60 in 2017 to a peak of 82 in 2020, held near 65 at the 2022 midpoint, and have declined toward the low teens in the most recent partial year. Publication lag of roughly 18 months means the very last year or two will always understate true filing activity, but the multi-year decline predates that lag and points to a genuinely cooling filing curve rather than a temporary dip.
The United States leads this dataset with 358 filings, followed by the European Patent Office at 205 and China at 170. India (141), WIPO PCT filings (89) and Canada (53) make up a substantial secondary tier. A competitive or freedom-to-operate review that only checks one office risks missing a meaningful share of active claims, particularly given how closely the top three jurisdictions track each other.
Crossover filings into coatings, powder metallurgy, polymer and composite processing, and non-ferrous alloy treatment each account for only a few dozen records against the 1,242 records concentrated in the core welding subclass B23K. This gap suggests hybrid claims — for example, friction stir processing combined with a specific coating deposition step or powder feedstock — sit on comparatively thin prior art relative to core tool and process claims.
Several assignees historically active in this space, including large steel, aerospace and university filers, show zero filings in the most recent tracked year in this dataset. This does not necessarily mean they have left the field: patent publication typically lags the actual filing date by around 18 months, so recent applications from these organisations may simply not be visible yet. It is worth monitoring rather than concluding withdrawal, especially for assignees with a long filing history in the space.
Research Friction Stir Welding and Processing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole friction stir welding and processing 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.