Generative Design Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing has plateaued, not grown. activity peaked at 27 families in 2022 and 2026 filings sit back at the 2017 level of 2 — the pioneering wave has already been claimed.
- Software IPCs dominate the claim set. 146 of 152 families sit in G06F (digital data processing) versus just 10 in B22F powder metallurgy, showing the fight is over algorithms, not materials.
- The US is the primary filing venue. 70 of the tracked filings route through the United States, more than double the EPO's 36, ahead of any single national office including China's 15.
What this patent set covers
This landscape tracks 152 patent families filed between 2017 and 2026 at the intersection of generative design, topology optimization and structural optimization, filtered to records that specify a manufacturing constraint, load case, lattice structure, compliance minimization objective or additive manufacturing output. The search combines free-text claim and title matching with IPC codes for computer-aided design (G06F30), additive manufacturing (B33Y50) and digital modelling (G06F119), so the corpus is narrower than general CAD or 3D-printing searches — it isolates the software layer that decides what shape gets built, not the printer or material claims that follow.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in the trend chart are undercounts and will revise upward as later applications publish. Treat the most recent one to two years as a floor, not a ceiling, when reading the trend line.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 152 families: how filing activity moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim volume.
Filings peaked in 2022 and have not recovered
Annual filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 27 in 2022, then declined toward 2 again in 2026 (a partial year). The shape is a single filing wave rather than sustained growth, consistent with an initial land grab around generative-design software followed by consolidation among the assignees who filed early.
Software claims dominate; materials and control follow
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears in 146 of 152 records, making it near-universal in this corpus. B33Y (additive manufacturing) at 45 and G05B (control and regulating systems) at 35 are the next largest, with B29C (plastics shaping) at 32. Powder metallurgy (B22F, 10) and AI-model computing (G06N, 5) are comparatively thin, and A61F implant claims (4) mark a small but present medical-device angle.
Shares are the percentage of the 152 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Generative Design and Topology Optimization with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about generative design and topology optimization and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
WO2021262456A1 — Generative design shape optimization using build material strength model
A method, system and medium-encoded computer program for computer-aided design of physical structures using generative design processes. The approach builds a three-dimensional model of an object to be manufactured using a stress constraint, where the CAD program obtains a design space, design criteria including at least one stress constraint and at least one in-use load case, and a specification of one or more materials, then produces a generatively designed three-dimensional shape by modifying the model against those constraints.Filed by Autodesk, Inc., published 2021-12-30.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US10635088B1 | Hollow topology generation with lattices for computer aided design and manufacturing | 77 |
| 2 | US20180079149A1 | Support structure constrained topology optimization for additive manufacturing | 64 |
| 3 | US20180345647A1 | Topology optimization for subtractive manufacturing techniques | 45 |
| 4 | WO2020097216A1 | Macrostructure topology generation with physical simulation for computer aided design and manufacturing | 32 |
| 5 | US20220004682A1 | Generative design shape optimization with controlled convergence for computer aided design and manufacturing | 28 |
| 6 | US20200342067A1 | Topology optimization of structure with multiple targets | 23 |
| 7 | US20190366703A1 | Optimizing 3D printed large-scale structures under worst-case loads | 23 |
| 8 | WO2018054502A1 | Design of lattice structures for additive manufacturing | 23 |
| 9 | US20190197210A1 | Designing a part by topology optimization | 22 |
| 10 | CN112214917A | 一种多尺度优化增材制造基板的方法及其基板 | 20 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings; a low-citation recent filing is not necessarily narrow or weak.
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 family counts, IPC spread and filing venues are read together.
The wave has crested
Filings climbed from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 27 in 2022, then fell back toward 2017 levels by 2026. That is a single filing cycle, not an accelerating field, though the last one to two years are undercounted due to publication lag.
Software claims, not hardware, are the crowded ground
Nearly every family in this set touches G06F digital-data-processing claims, while powder metallurgy (10) and AI-model computing (5) remain thin. The contested territory is algorithmic — how the shape is generated and constrained — not the printer or powder chemistry that executes it.
US filing leads by a wide margin
Seventy of the tracked filings route through the United States Patent and Trademark Office, more than the EPO and PCT combined. China's 15 and India's 6 filings suggest those jurisdictions are still early in local prosecution activity for this specific claim combination.
Filing is mostly solo, not joint
Only two co-assignee pairings appear across 152 families, and the strongest pairing has just two shared filings. Generative-design IP in this set is built inside single organisations rather than through joint-venture filing structures.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to generative design and topology optimization, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the claim space is still open
The ranking table (rendered separately) shows filing concentrated among a small group of CAD and industrial-software assignees, with recent-year momentum flat across the names tracked here.
Leaders have gone quiet in the most recent year
Every one of the assignees tracked for recent-year momentum shows zero filings in the latest year, which is consistent with the broader plateau in the trend data and with publication lag masking filings still working through the pipeline.
Additive-manufacturing output is a secondary, not primary, claim focus
Only 45 of 152 families carry a B33Y additive-manufacturing classification alongside the core software claims, meaning most generative-design patents in this set claim the design method itself, with manufacturing output as a downstream constraint rather than the invention's centre.
Implant-specific generative design is a small, distinct pocket
A61F (implants and prostheses) appears in only 4 of 152 families, indicating that medically-constrained generative design — patient-specific load cases, biocompatible lattice claims — is filed by a narrow set of entrants rather than the mainstream CAD vendors.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Autodesk, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Dassault Systèmes | 0 | — |
| Siemens Industry Software Inc. | 0 | — |
| Siemens AG | 0 | — |
| Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. | 0 | — |
| Corintis | 0 | — |
| SIEMENS CORP | 0 | — |
| Adidas AG | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this
The data points to a mature, US-centred filing base with algorithmic claims doing most of the work. Two directions follow from that.
Map freedom-to-operate against the top-cited claims
The five most-cited records concentrate on lattice generation, support-structure-constrained optimization and build-material strength modelling. Any new filing touching those exact constraint types should be checked against them first.
Run a claim comparison in Eureka →Test the under-claimed branches before committing to core G06F claims
With 146 of 152 families already sitting in digital-data-processing claims, a first filing aimed squarely at generative-design software faces dense prior art. The thinner pockets — implant-specific load cases, powder-metallurgy compliance minimization — carry less prosecution risk.
Explore white space in Eureka →Common questions about generative design and topology optimization patents
Filing in this dataset is concentrated among a small group of industrial CAD and PLM software vendors, alongside a longer tail of single-filing entrants. The recent-year momentum data shows the tracked leading assignees all at zero filings in the latest year, which reflects both a genuine plateau after the 2022 peak and the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication. Anyone assessing competitive position should look at cumulative family counts rather than the latest single year, since that year is always undercounted.
It is slowing, based on the filing trend in this corpus. Annual filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 27 in 2022, then declined back toward 2017 levels by 2026. That pattern looks like a single filing wave tied to the initial commercialisation of generative-design software rather than a technology still in its growth phase, though the final one to two years will revise upward as pending applications publish.
The core classifications are G06F30 for computer-aided design, B33Y50 for additive-manufacturing-specific data processing, and G06F119 for digital models used in that design process. In this dataset G06F appears in 146 of 152 families, making it near-universal, while B33Y appears in 45, G05B (control systems) in 35 and B29C (plastics shaping) in 32. Powder metallurgy (B22F) and AI-model computing (G06N) are present but comparatively thin, at 10 and 5 families respectively.
The thinnest IPC coverage relative to the overall claim mass sits in AI-model-driven design generation (G06N, 5 families), implant-specific applications (A61F, 4 families), and powder-metallurgy-specific compliance minimization (B22F, 10 families). These branches carry the core generative-design and load-case logic seen across the corpus but have not been claimed as densely as the mainstream software methods, which suggests more room to file a defensible first claim there than in the crowded G06F space.
The United States is the dominant receiving office in this dataset, with 70 filings compared with 36 at the EPO, 19 through the PCT route, and 15 in China. That concentration means US prior art searching should come first in any freedom-to-operate review, but the comparatively low counts in China (15) and India (6) suggest those markets are less crowded for this specific claim combination and may warrant earlier filing if commercial plans include them.
Research Generative Design and Topology Optimization in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole generative design and topology optimization 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.