Investment Casting Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 24.1% of all filings sit with five assignees. the top five combined account for 545 of 2,263 records in scope, with a long tail of single- and low-filing entrants behind them.
- Filing peaked in 2017 at 123 records and has since declined. by the 2022 midpoint annual filing had fallen to 80, and the trend has not recovered — publication lag means the final 12-18 months always understate the true count.
- Foundry moulding claims sit on almost the entire corpus. B22C covers 98.8% of the 2,263 records, while additive manufacturing (B33Y) and alloy composition (C22C) each cover under 4%, marking them as comparatively open ground.
What this landscape covers
This dataset draws on 2,263 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, matched on investment casting, lost wax casting and precision casting terminology combined with process-specific language: ceramic shell, wax pattern, directional solidification, dimensional accuracy and core removal. The IPC scope is anchored to B22C9 (moulds, cores and related appliances), B22C7 (patterns) and C22C19 (alloys based on nickel, cobalt or other metals used in casting), which keeps the corpus centred on the mechanics of the casting process rather than the broader universe of metal parts.
The records span foundry moulding practice, alloy chemistry and adjacent shaping disciplines, with receiving offices concentrated in the United States, China, Japan and Europe. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate the real level of filing activity.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 2,263-record corpus: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses.
A peak in 2017, then a steady decline
Annual filings ran at 123 in 2017, the peak year in this dataset, falling to 80 by the 2022 midpoint and to 6 in the most recent, still-partial year. The shape is consistent with a mature process technology rather than one still attracting a wave of new entrants — though the final years should be read with the publication lag in mind.
Foundry moulding dominates; adjacent classes are thin
B22C (foundry moulding) appears on 98.8% of the 2,263 records, confirming this is the anchor classification for the field. B22D (metal casting) follows at 20.2%, with B29C (plastics shaping), F01D (turbines), C04B (ceramics and refractories), B28B (clay/cement shaping), B33Y (additive manufacturing) and C22C (alloys) each present in single-digit shares. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares add up to more than 100% of the record total.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,263 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Investment and Precision Casting with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about investment and precision casting and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
Investment casting utilizing flexible wax pattern tool (US20110132564A1)
An investment casting process wherein the wax pattern tool is flexible to facilitate removal of the tool from the cast wax pattern even when the cast shape would otherwise require multiple pull planes. The flexible tool may include a flexible insert precisely indexed to a surrounding coffin mold, and thereby to an enclosed ceramic core. Positioning pins may extend from the flexible tool to make compliant contact against the core prior to a wax injection step. The surface of the resulting wax pattern may contain an engineered topography replicated through the flexible surface from a master tool.Filed by Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, published 2011-06-09.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5762125A | Custom bioimplantable article | 331 |
| 2 | US6637500B2 | Cores for use in precision investment casting | 285 |
| 3 | US5296308A | Investment casting using core with integral wall thickness control means | 247 |
| 4 | US6929054B2 | Investment casting cores | 174 |
| 5 | US6626230B1 | Multi-wall core and process | 134 |
| 6 | US20130333855A1 | Investment casting utilizing flexible wax pattern tool for supporting a ceramic core along its length during … | 124 |
| 7 | US5108435A | Cast bone ingrowth surface | 119 |
| 8 | JP2005245215A | Method for producing reel seat for fishing rod | 116 |
| 9 | US4703806A | Ceramic shell mold facecoat and core coating systems for investment casting of reactive metals | 101 |
| 10 | US4093017A | Cores for investment casting process | 100 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — treat this as a signal of influence on the field, not a ranking of current importance.
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 data means for filing strategy
Reading the concentration, trend and classification figures together points to where claim space is occupied and where it is not.
Filing is concentrated but not locked up
The top five assignees combined hold 545 of the 2,263 records in scope, and the top ten hold 764 (33.8%). That leaves close to two-thirds of the corpus spread across a long tail of assignees with smaller filing counts, which is where freedom-to-operate analysis needs the most care rather than the least.
Filing volume has declined from its 2017 peak
Annual filings peaked at 123 in 2017 and had fallen to 80 by 2022, the midpoint of the window. The decline suggests the core process claims in ceramic shell moulding and wax pattern tooling were substantially staked out earlier in the period, pushing newer filers toward narrower refinements.
Additive manufacturing overlap remains thin
Only 3.7% of records carry a B33Y additive manufacturing code and just 3.4% carry a C22C alloy-composition code, despite both being natural adjacencies to investment casting via printed patterns and novel casting alloys. That gap is a candidate area for new claims rather than an area already saturated.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to investment and precision casting, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the activity has stalled
The ranked leaders in this dataset are dominated by aerospace and turbine-adjacent manufacturers, but recent-year momentum has flattened across nearly all of them.
One assignee sits well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 150 records, well above the fifth-place figure of 59 and the tenth-place figure of 29. The drop-off after the leader is steep, which is typical of a field anchored by one long-standing aerospace-casting portfolio rather than several evenly matched competitors.
Recent-year filing has gone quiet across leaders
Several of the most active historical filers show zero recorded filings in the latest year, and one shows a -50% year-on-year change from a single filing. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this likely overstates the slowdown, but it is consistent with the broader trend decline seen since 2017.
Co-filing is limited and clustered
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest of these is a single pairing with 30 joint records — well above the next pairings, which sit at 6. That pattern points to one dominant collaborative relationship rather than a broad network of joint filing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| AECC Beijing Institute of Aeronautical Materials | 1 | -50% |
| United Technologies Corporation | 0 | — |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| Rolls-Royce plc | 0 | — |
| Howmet Research Corporation | 0 | — |
| Buntrock Industries, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Mikro Systems, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Siemens Energy, Inc. (US) | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The figures above frame the field at a high level. Confirming freedom to operate on a specific process step requires drilling into claim language and family status.
Check claim scope on core removal and ceramic shell steps
The most-cited records in this corpus concentrate on core design and removal, which suggests these steps carry denser prior art than newer additive-manufacturing-adjacent filings.
Explore this technology in EurekaTrack the leading assignee's recent activity closely
With filing volume down across the field's most active historical filers, a near-term shift by any one of them would be visible quickly given how concentrated the leaderboard is.
Set up monitoring in EurekaAssess the additive-manufacturing overlap before filing
B33Y and C22C coverage sit in the single digits relative to the 2,263-record total, making printed-pattern and novel-alloy claims worth a dedicated search before drafting.
Run a white space search in EurekaCommon questions on investment casting patents
In this dataset the leading assignee holds 150 of the 2,263 records in scope, with the fifth-ranked assignee at 59 and the tenth-ranked at 29. The top five assignees combined account for 24.1% of all records, and the top ten account for 33.8%. The remaining two-thirds of filings are spread across a long tail of the ranked assignees, so no single company controls the field outright even though the leader has a clear lead.
Filing peaked in 2017 at 123 records and had fallen to 80 by the 2022 midpoint of the window, with only 6 recorded in the most recent, still-partial year. This points to a slowing rather than growing filing trend over the period covered. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years should be read as understated rather than as evidence of a sudden stop.
Relative to the core foundry moulding classification (B22C), which covers 98.8% of the 2,263 records, additive manufacturing (B33Y) and alloy composition (C22C) each appear on under 4% of records. That gap suggests printed sacrificial patterns, 3D-printed cores and novel casting alloys are comparatively under-claimed relative to traditional wax pattern and ceramic shell process claims. Anyone considering these areas should still run a dedicated search, since low IPC coverage in a broad corpus does not guarantee an empty field for a specific claim.
The most-cited record in this corpus is a filing on a custom bioimplantable article cited 331 times, followed by patents on cores for precision investment casting and on integral wall thickness control in investment casting cores. High citation counts in a searched corpus tend to favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations, so these figures are best read as a signal of historical influence rather than current commercial importance.
US20110132564A1, filed by Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, covers an investment casting process using a flexible wax pattern tool that can be removed from a cast wax pattern even where the shape would otherwise require multiple pull planes. It specifies a flexible insert indexed to a surrounding coffin mould and an enclosed ceramic core, with positioning pins that contact the core before wax injection. For anyone designing tooling for complex-geometry wax patterns, this filing is a useful reference point for what flexible-tool claim language already looks like in the field.
Research Investment and Precision Casting in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole investment and precision casting 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.