Injection Molding Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 17.0% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees account for 809 of 4,769 records in scope, so more than four-fifths of the field is held outside that group.
- Filings have cooled since 2019. Annual output ran from 137 in 2017 to a peak of 178 in 2019, then eased toward 149 at the 2022 midpoint — a mature, not expanding, claim space.
- Almost every record sits in one shaping subclass. 99.5% of records carry B29C, while adjacent index classes like B29L and B29K appear in well under a fifth — a sign of where narrower claims are still open.
What this landscape covers
This landscape draws on 4,769 published records filed between 2015 and 2026 that combine injection molding or injection moulding process terms with technical concepts such as holding pressure, warpage, weld line and mold flow simulation, restricted to shaping and simulation-related IPC classes (B29C45, B29C33, G06F30). The scope is process technology — how a mold is filled, packed and cooled — rather than the broader universe of plastics chemistry or unrelated molding equipment.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent year in the trend is necessarily undercounted and should be read as a floor, not a peak.
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 4,769 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses those filings actually sit in.
A field past its peak
Annual filings rose from 137 in 2017 to a peak of 178 in 2019, then settled near 149 by the 2022 midpoint before tapering toward the partial 2026 count of 7. Read the tail years as incomplete rather than as a real decline.
One dominant shaping class, several thin index classes
B29C (shaping of plastics) appears in 99.5% of the 4,769 records, confirming this is a tightly scoped process dataset. Index classes such as B29L (14.1%), B29K (10.3%) and material-side classes like C08L (5.5%) and C08K (3.8%) show up far less often, and G11B (2.5%) marks a narrow but persistent optical-media molding niche.
Shares are the percentage of the 4,769 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Injection Molding Process Technology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about injection molding process technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
EP3354439B1 — weld-line-free negative lens element molding
Filed by Essilor International and granted with a priority date reaching back into the dataset's window, this record claims an injection molding process aimed at producing minus-power lens elements without weld lines — a defect category the search terms specifically target.Granted 2023-01-25.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6294122B1 | Electric actuator for a melt flow control pin | 356 |
| 2 | EP0118240A2 | Process for injection moulding starch | 335 |
| 3 | US4673438A | Polymer composition for injection molding | 330 |
| 4 | US6309208B1 | Apparatus for proportionally controlling fluid delivery to a mold | 263 |
| 5 | US6287107B1 | Apparatus for proportionally controlling fluid delivery to a mold | 241 |
| 6 | US6254377B1 | Manifold system having flow control using extended valve pin | 232 |
| 7 | US7585166B2 | System for monitoring temperature and pressure during a molding process | 227 |
| 8 | US6464909B1 | Manifold system having flow control | 227 |
| 9 | US4828769A | Method for injection molding articles | 209 |
| 10 | US6343921B1 | Manifold system having flow control | 202 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings that have had more years to accumulate citations — treat them as a signal of influence, not of 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
Four things the dataset supports without extrapolation.
Leadership is real but not overwhelming
The five leading assignees hold 809 of the 4,769 records in scope — a meaningful lead but far short of a lock. Extending to ten names adds only another 6.6 percentage points (23.6% total), which points to a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants rather than a two-firm duopoly.
Volume has plateaued since the peak
Filings climbed from 137 in 2017 to 178 in 2019, then eased to 149 by 2022. That trajectory reads as a settled process area rather than one still being built out — new entrants are more likely to compete on narrow improvements than to open new ground.
Claim density sits almost entirely in one subclass
With B29C present in 99.5% of the 4,769 records, the shaping-of-plastics class is effectively saturated as a search space. The comparatively thin presence of B29D (4.0%) and G11B (2.5%) suggests specific product-article and optical-media applications remain less thoroughly claimed.
Filing activity clusters in Japan and the US
Japan (1,272) and the United States (1,251) each substantially outpace Europe (907), China (243) and the WIPO PCT route (231), suggesting the commercially defended core of this technology is concentrated in those two jurisdictions rather than spread evenly across major markets.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to injection molding process technology, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where activity has stalled
The ranked leaders combine established injection molding equipment makers with hot-runner and mold-flow specialists. Recent-year momentum, however, tells a quieter story than the historical ranking.
A single leader well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 476 records, more than six times the fifth-place count of 72 — a gap wide enough that catching up on volume alone is not realistic for most new entrants.
Historical leaders have gone quiet
Multiple assignees that built large historical portfolios, including Fanuc, Asahi Kasei and Toyo Machinery & Metal, show zero filings in the latest tracked year, and Nissei Plastic Industrial shows a -100% year-on-year change. That pattern is consistent with a mature space rather than active abandonment.
Co-filing is limited and mostly intra-group
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pairings look like affiliate relationships (a machinery maker filing jointly with a related plastics-machinery unit) rather than cross-company technology alliances. Formal collaboration is not a major feature of this landscape.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd. | 1 | -67% |
| Fanuc Ltd. | 0 | — |
| iMFLUX Inc. | 0 | — |
| Nissei Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Asahi Kasei Corporation | 0 | — |
| Toyo Machinery & Metal Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| The Japan Steel Works, Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio benchmarking or identifying acquisition targets.
Check freedom-to-operate against the most-cited records
The highest-cited documents, several dating to the 1980s-2000s, cover core mechanisms like proportional fluid delivery and melt flow control actuators that later filings likely build on.
Explore citation networkWatch the quiet historical leaders for reactivation
Several large historical filers show zero or sharply declining recent activity; a reactivation or acquisition could shift the concentration figures quickly.
Track assignee activityProbe the thin index classes for open claim space
B29D, C08K and G11B each sit under 5% of records despite the dense B29C core, suggesting narrower product-specific claims may still be available.
Run a white space searchCommon questions about injection molding process patents
Based on 4,769 records filed between 2015 and 2026, the ranking is led by a single assignee with 476 records, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 72 and tenth place at 59. Names appearing among the ranked leaders include established injection molding equipment and hot-runner specialists such as Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Fanuc, Nissei Plastic Industrial and Husky Injection Molding Systems. Even so, the top five together account for only 17.0% of all records in scope, so leadership is real but far from a monopoly.
No — filings peaked at 178 in 2019 and had eased to roughly 149 by the 2022 midpoint, with the partial 2026 count of 7 reflecting publication lag rather than a sudden stop. The overall shape is a plateau after growth through the late 2010s rather than a technology still expanding its claim footprint. Anyone benchmarking activity should treat the last one to two years of any such trend as understated because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months.
Almost every record in this dataset, 99.5% of 4,769, carries the core B29C shaping-of-plastics classification, confirming that holding-pressure and warpage claims sit squarely inside conventional injection molding process art. Index classes layered on top matter for narrower positioning: B29L (plastic products index) appears in 14.1% of records and B29K (moulding materials index) in 10.3%, while material-composition classes like C08L and C08K appear less often. A freedom-to-operate search should not stop at B29C alone given how many records also touch these adjacent classes.
The technology composition data shows several branches sitting well below the dominant B29C shaping class: specific plastic article claims under B29D appear in only 4.0% of records, additive-use claims under C08K in 3.8%, and the optical/magnetic-media molding overlap under G11B in just 2.5%. These lower shares, combined with a long tail of single-filing entrants beyond the ranked leaders, suggest narrower process claims tied to specific article geometries or material-additive combinations remain comparatively open. Confirming true white space still requires a targeted novelty search rather than relying on composition shares alone.
Concentration is moderate rather than extreme: the top five assignees hold 17.0% of the 4,769 records in scope, and extending to the top ten adds only another 6.6 percentage points to reach 23.6%. That leaves roughly three-quarters of filings spread across a long tail within the 100 ranked companies. For a new entrant, this means competing against one clearly dominant filer at the top but a fragmented rest of the field rather than a small cartel of assignees to design around.
Research Injection Molding Process Technology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole injection molding process technology 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.