Glass Cutting Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- One filer dominates. the leading assignee holds 75 of the 78 records in scope, with the next four assignees holding as few as 1 each.
- Filing peaked in 2017 at 12 records and has declined since, though the most recent year is partial and understated by publication lag.
- Claims cluster in two IPC subclasses, C03B (91.0% of records) and B23K (80.8%), while grinding tools and printed-circuit-adjacent classes stay under 11%.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent filings at the intersection of glass cutting and edge finishing — laser filamentation cutting, mechanical edge grinding, chamfering and the downstream metrics that determine yield, such as chipping at edge, microcrack depth and edge strength recovery. The search combines cutting-method terms with quality and process terms, which pulls in both the laser-optics side of the problem and the mechanical-polishing side that follows it.
Across 78 records filed between 2015 and 2026, the technology sits overwhelmingly in glass manufacture and shaping (C03B) and welding/soldering/brazing (B23K) — the latter capturing laser-based separation methods classified under thermal processing. Smaller pockets of activity touch glass composition, laminated structures, optics and abrasive tooling, but none approach the density of the two lead classes.
Filing trend and technology composition
The two charts below use the same 78-record base: one tracks filings by year, the other shows how records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry more than one IPC class, the subclass shares add up to well over 100%.
A 2017 peak followed by a decline
Filings rose to 12 records in 2017, the peak year in this dataset, then trailed off toward 2026. Treat the final one or two years as understated: publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so recent filings have not all surfaced yet.
Concentration in glass shaping and thermal cutting
C03B (glass manufacture and shaping) appears in 91.0% of the 78 records and B23K (welding, soldering and brazing, which covers laser separation methods) in 80.8%. Every other subclass — glass compositions, laminates, optics, grinding and printed circuits — sits at 17.9% or below, indicating that claim activity is heavily weighted toward the cutting step itself rather than surrounding processes.
Shares are the percentage of the 78 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Glass Cutting and Edge Finishing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about glass cutting and edge finishing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this landscape
Edge chamfering by mechanically processing laser cut glass
Processes of chamfering and/or beveling an edge of a glass substrate of arbitrary shape using lasers are described herein. Two general methods to produce chamfers on glass substrates are the first method involves cutting the edge with the desired chamfer shape utilizing an ultra-short pulse laser that is followed by mechanical polishing with a compliant polishing wheel.Filed by Corning, published 2017-01-12 as US20170008793A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20150166393A1 | Laser cutting of ion-exchangeable glass substrates | 202 |
| 2 | US20150165563A1 | Stacked transparent material cutting with ultrafast laser beam optics, disruptive layers and other layers | 130 |
| 3 | US20150232369A1 | Laser cutting of display glass compositions | 125 |
| 4 | US20150166391A1 | Laser cut composite glass article and method of cutting | 111 |
| 5 | WO2016010954A2 | Systems and methods for processing transparent materials using adjustable laser beam focal lines | 103 |
| 6 | US20150166397A1 | Transparent material cutting with ultrafast laser & beam optics | 85 |
| 7 | US20180057390A1 | Laser cutting and processing of display glass compositions | 84 |
| 8 | US20180062342A1 | Laser cutting of materials with intensity mapping optical system | 81 |
| 9 | WO2015095088A1 | Laser cutting of display glass compositions | 67 |
| 10 | US9850160B2 | Laser cutting of display glass compositions | 64 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings; read them as a signal of influence within this dataset, not as a ranking of current 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 filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the IPC composition are read together: a single filer's dominance, a filing peak that has already passed, and a technology split that leaves several adjacent process steps thinly claimed.
One assignee holds nearly the entire dataset
The leading assignee accounts for 75 of the 78 records in the ranking, with the remaining four assignees holding as few as 1 record each. This is not a fragmented field with many active competitors; it is a field where one filer has built a dense claim position and everyone else has a marginal footprint.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 and has since declined
The trend line shows 12 records in 2017, the highest single year in the dataset, with fewer records in each subsequent year through 2026. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one or two years understate true activity, but the multi-year decline predates that lag window.
Cutting claims dominate; downstream integration is thin
C03B and B23K together describe the cutting step itself and cover the large majority of records. Optics (G02B), grinding tools (B24D) and printed circuits (H05K) sit far lower, suggesting the intersection of cutting with downstream integration and abrasive tooling carries less claim density than the cutting method itself.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to glass cutting and edge finishing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claims
The ranking returned by this dataset covers five companies, counted in records — it is not a top-50 or top-100 list, so a fifth-place assignee with a single record still represents the entire long tail available here.
A single filer with a dense, multi-decade position
The leading assignee's 75 records span the dataset's full 2015–2026 window and its representative filing, US20170008793A1, covers laser cutting combined with mechanical chamfering — a method claim that touches both halves of the search string.
Four assignees with marginal, non-overlapping footprints
The other four ranked assignees hold a handful of records between them, including one co-assignee pair. None show filing activity in the latest year, and one shows a -100% year-on-year change, consistent with a field where challengers have not sustained a filing programme.
Filing is routed through US, European and PCT offices
The United States receives the largest share of filings, followed by the European Patent Office and WIPO's PCT route, with smaller counts at AT, Germany and Malaysia. This spread points to a filer strategy built around US and European enforcement plus PCT optionality rather than broad national filing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Corning Incorporated | 0 | — |
| Kumabe Junichiro | 0 | — |
| Sichuan Hongji Optical Glass New Materials Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| KUMABE JUNICHIRO | 0 | — |
| G TE SYLVANIA INC | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated field with a passed filing peak and a few thinly claimed branches. The next steps depend on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, competitive tracking, or identifying a filing angle.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leading assignee's claim set
With 75 of 78 records held by one filer, any new cutting or chamfering method should be checked claim-by-claim against that portfolio before development spend, particularly where laser cutting and mechanical polishing are combined in a single process.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaMonitor whether filing activity resumes past the 2017 peak
The decline since 2017 could reflect a mature claim position rather than a shrinking field. Tracking new publications as the 18-month lag clears will show whether the leading assignee or a new entrant restarts filing.
Set up monitoring in EurekaScope the under-claimed branches before committing to a filing angle
Optics integration, abrasive tooling and laminate chamfering all sit below 13% of records. A first claim drafted around one of these intersections has a better chance of clearing prior art than a claim on the core cutting method itself.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about glass cutting and edge finishing patents
One assignee holds 75 of the 78 records in this dataset, making it by far the dominant filer in this specific search scope. The remaining four ranked assignees hold as few as 1 record each, so the field is not evenly contested among several active competitors. Anyone assessing competitive risk in this space should treat the leading assignee's portfolio as the primary reference point rather than spreading diligence evenly across the ranking.
Laser-based cutting methods, classified largely under C03B and B23K, cover 91.0% and 80.8% of the 78 records respectively, making them the dominant claimed approach. Mechanical grinding and polishing, captured under B24B and B24D, together sit well below that, at 10.3% and 5.1% of records. This does not mean mechanical finishing is unpatented — it means fewer records in this search combine grinding terms with the cutting and yield terms used to build this dataset.
Filings peaked in 2017 at 12 records, the highest single year in the 2015–2026 window, and have declined in the years since. The most recent one or two years should be read cautiously: patent publication typically lags the actual filing date by around 18 months, so recent activity is undercounted in any dataset pulled before that lag clears. The multi-year decline visible before that lag window, however, is a real signal of reduced filing pace.
US20170008793A1, filed by Corning and published in January 2017, covers processes for chamfering or beveling the edge of a glass substrate of arbitrary shape using lasers, including a method that cuts the edge with an ultra-short pulse laser followed by mechanical polishing with a compliant polishing wheel. It sits at the intersection of the two dominant IPC classes in this dataset, C03B and B23K, which is consistent with its status as a representative filing. Anyone developing a combined laser-cut-then-polish chamfering process should review this filing's claim scope directly before proceeding.
The technology composition data shows optics (G02B, 11.5%), grinding tools (B24D, 5.1%) and printed circuit integration (H05K, 3.8%) all sitting far below the core cutting classes. These lower-density intersections — for example, edge finishing methods tied to optical-grade strength recovery or laminate-stack chamfering — are more likely to have open claim space than the core laser-cutting method itself, though this should be confirmed with a targeted freedom-to-operate search rather than assumed from IPC shares alone.
Research Glass Cutting and Edge Finishing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole glass cutting and edge finishing 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.