Gear Grinding Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- Concentrated at the top. the five leading assignees hold 60.8% of all 102 records in scope, and the ranked ten hold 81.4%.
- Growth has cooled from its peak. filings ran 7 in 2021, the peak year, down to 5 in 2024 — a 29% pull-back over that span.
- Grinding-tool claims dominate. B23F gear-cutting classes touch 64.7% of records and B24B grinding classes touch 39.2%, so most contested claim space sits at that intersection.
Filing growth compares 2021 (7 records) with 2024 (5) — 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 102 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent activity at the intersection of gear grinding and profile correction — generating grinding, threaded-wheel dressing, flank topography control, twist compensation, coolant supply during grinding, and the residual-stress and grinding-burn signatures that come out of the process. The search spans records filed between 2015 and mid-2026, with the most recent one to two years understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
Filing offices cluster around the countries with the deepest machine-tool and automotive-gear manufacturing bases: the United States leads intake, followed by the European Patent Office, China, India, Germany and Japan. That spread points to a field where protection is sought wherever gear-cutting capacity is built out, not just wherever the underlying R&D happens.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 102 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend
Annual filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 7 in 2021, then eased to 5 by 2024 — a 29% decline over that three-year window. Years after 2024 are still filling in as publications catch up, so treat the tail of the chart as a floor, not a ceiling.
Technology composition
B23F (gear and thread cutting) appears on 64.7% of the 102 records and B24B (grinding and polishing) on 39.2%, confirming that most filings sit squarely at the grinding-meets-gear-cutting boundary. Smaller shares in B24D abrasives, C10M/C10N lubricants, and G01N/G01M measurement and testing classes mark where coolant chemistry and in-process inspection claims sit, each touching under 15% of records.
Shares are the percentage of the 102 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Gear Grinding and Profile Correction with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about gear grinding and profile correction and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
US20130115856A1 — Gear grinding method
The filing sets an initial cutting position for a grindstone by placing a grid of measurement points across the left and right tooth surfaces of a workpiece tooth, then uses those points to control workpiece rotation and grindstone feed along the X and Z axes during the grind.Filed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Machine Tool Co., Ltd. — see the claims breakdown in the chat panel below for what this specifically blocks.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6217409B1 | Threaded grinding wheel and method of dressing | 93 |
| 2 | US6577917B1 | Process and apparatus for the automatic measurement of processing and workpiece characteristics when grinding… | 50 |
| 3 | US4422265A | Multistation grinding machine | 50 |
| 4 | US6050883A | Method of grinding the teeth of spiral-toothed bevel gear wheels | 30 |
| 5 | US20130115856A1 | Gear grinding method | 20 |
| 6 | EP3124583A1 | Water-soluble metalworking fluid, and metalworking coolant | 18 |
| 7 | US20110275290A1 | Internal gear grinding machine and dressing method for barrel-shaped threaded tool | 15 |
| 8 | US20110268522A1 | Internal gear grinding machine | 15 |
| 9 | EP2583779A1 | Gear grinding method | 10 |
| 10 | CN107655682A | 一种齿轮磨削烧伤自动检测系统 | 9 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — read them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not of current commercial weight.
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 signals worth weighing before committing claim language in this space.
A short list of assignees already occupies most of the claim space
With the five leading assignees holding 60.8% of all 102 records and the ranked ten holding 81.4%, new entrants are filing into ground that a small group of machine-tool and abrasives makers has already staked out. That does not close the field, but it does mean freedom-to-operate work should start with those incumbents' claim scopes.
Volume has pulled back from its 2021 peak, not accelerated
Filings peaked at 7 in 2021 and had eased to 5 by 2024, a 29% decline over that span. That is the most recent year-over-year comparison the data supports cleanly; years after 2024 are still incomplete because of publication lag and should not be read as a continued slide.
Claims cluster where gear-cutting meets grinding, not around adjacent chemistry
B23F and B24B between them touch the large majority of records, while lubricant classes C10M and C10N and the testing classes G01N and G01M each sit under 15%. That gap suggests coolant formulation and in-process measurement are still comparatively lightly claimed relative to the mechanical grinding process itself.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to gear grinding and profile correction, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is still open
Machine-tool builders and abrasives suppliers hold the largest positions, with a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants behind them.
One assignee sits well clear of the rest of the field
The leading assignee holds 23 of the 102 records in scope, more than double the fifth-place holder's 8. That gap is wide enough that any new filer should map the leader's claim scope specifically, rather than treating the field as evenly contested.
Some of the top filers file jointly, not independently
The strongest co-assignee pairings in this dataset each share 9 records, linking an abrasives maker, a lubricant chemistry supplier and an automotive-gear manufacturing unit. That pattern points to grinding-wheel dressing and coolant chemistry being developed in tandem with the automotive end user rather than sold as standalone technology.
Beyond the top ten, filing is thin and scattered
The ranking runs to 37 companies, but the top ten already account for 81.4% of the 102 records, leaving the remaining 27-plus assignees to split the rest. That is a long tail of occasional filers rather than a second tier of comparable scale to the leaders.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Noritake Co., Limited | 0 | — |
| Yushiro Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Toyota Motor Hokkaido, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| The Gleason Works | 0 | — |
| Klingelnberg AG | 0 | -100% |
| Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Machine Tool Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
Where to take this
Two directions depend on whether the next step is defensive or exploratory.
Map freedom-to-operate against the top holders
With 81.4% of records held by the top ten assignees, a clearance search should start by pulling the full claim scope of the leading holder and the strongest co-filing pair before drafting new claims in the core grinding-process space.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in Eureka →Explore the under-claimed coolant and measurement branches
Lubricant and testing classes each sit under 15% of records despite being functionally tied to the core grinding process, which is where a first claim has more room to stand without crowding an incumbent.
Explore white space in Eureka →Common questions on gear grinding patents
One assignee leads clearly with 23 of the 102 records in scope, more than double the count held by the fifth-ranked company at 8. The top five combined hold 60.8% of all records, and the top ten hold 81.4%, so filing activity is concentrated among a small group of machine-tool builders, abrasives makers and their automotive partners rather than spread evenly across the 37 ranked assignees. Anyone drafting new claims in this space should check that leader's portfolio first.
Annual filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 7 in 2021, then eased to 5 by 2024, a 29% decline over that three-year span. That is the cleanest year-over-year read the data supports, since 2025 and 2026 filings are still being published and will revise upward due to the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication. Read the recent years as incomplete rather than as evidence of a sustained downturn.
B23F, the gear and thread cutting classification, appears on 64.7% of the 102 records, and B24B, grinding and polishing, appears on 39.2%, making the intersection of those two the densest claim territory. Supporting technologies show up less often: grinding tools and abrasives (B24D) at 14.7%, lubricants (C10M/C10N) each under 8%, and measurement or testing classes (G01N/G01M) each under 8%. Since a single record can carry multiple classes, these figures do not sum to 100% and should be read individually against the 102-record total.
This Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Machine Tool filing describes a gear grinding method that sets an initial grindstone cutting position using a grid of measurement points across both tooth flanks of a workpiece, then controls workpiece rotation and grindstone feed along two axes based on those readings. It is one of the more heavily cited records in this dataset, which signals it has been referenced often within the searched corpus rather than that it is necessarily the broadest current claim. Anyone designing a similar measurement-driven cutting-position method should review its specific claim language before proceeding.
Relative to the dense core grinding-process claims, coolant supply chemistry, in-process flank topography measurement, twist compensation methods, residual-stress verification and grinding-burn detection each sit at comparatively low filing density in this dataset. These branches are functionally connected to the core process but are not claimed as heavily as the mechanical grinding and dressing methods themselves. That gap is where a first, narrowly drafted claim has more room to stand without immediately colliding with an incumbent's scope.
Research Gear Grinding and Profile Correction in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole gear grinding and profile correction 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.