Laser Powder Bed Fusion Patents: Leaders & Filing Trends 2026
- Filing has plateaued, not grown. Activity peaked at 48 families in 2024 after climbing from 9 in 2017 — the flat-to-declining trend since the 2022 midpoint (26) suggests the core process claims are largely staked out.
- Powder metallurgy and 3D printing IPC codes dominate together. B22F and B33Y each cover the large majority of the 306 families, while welding (B23K), alloys (C22C) and heat treatment (C21D, C22F) sit far behind — a sign that process-control claims cluster tightly around two subclasses.
- The US leads filing venues, but China is close behind. 306 tracked families split 114 US / 85 China / 43 EPO / 39 WIPO — a geographic spread wide enough that a freedom-to-operate check confined to one office will miss real prior art.
What this landscape covers
Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) — also filed under selective laser melting or metal powder bed fusion — builds metal parts by fusing successive powder layers with a directed laser, with claim activity concentrated on melt pool behaviour, scan strategy, porosity defect control, residual stress management and build rate. This dataset pulls 306 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine those process terms with the core IPC codes for powder metallurgy, additive manufacturing and laser-based joining.
Patent families, not raw document counts, drive the rankings below, which discounts assignees that file many continuations or duplicate filings across jurisdictions in favour of those with distinct inventive contributions. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025-2026 figures in every trend chart are undercounts that will rise as later-filed applications publish.
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 306-family dataset: the year-by-year filing curve, and how those families distribute across the IPC subclasses that define the process.
A decade of filing that has already crested
Families rose from 9 in 2017 to a peak of 48 in 2024, passing through 26 at the 2022 midpoint. The flat-to-declining shape after the peak, even allowing for publication lag understating 2025-2026, points to a technology whose core process claims are maturing rather than still expanding.
Two subclasses carry almost all of the claim density
B22F (powder metallurgy, 271 records) and B33Y (additive manufacturing, 251 records) between them cover nearly the whole dataset, with B23K (welding/laser joining, 82) and C22C (alloys, 77) as secondary clusters. Heat-treatment codes C21D and C22F sit at just 12 and 22 respectively — thin coverage relative to how central post-build heat treatment is to LPBF part qualification.
Shares are the percentage of the 306 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about laser powder bed fusion process and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records and what they anchor
Method for preparing magnesium alloy tissue engineering scaffold with smooth inner surface by laser powder bed fusion (LPBF)
A method for preparing a magnesium alloy tissue engineering scaffold with a smooth inner surface by laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) is provided. The method includes: step S1: scanning a porous scaffold, and selecting the densest filling scan parameters, where the scanning includes a single-pass contour scan and a single-pass filling scan; step S2: optimizing a contour scan strategy according to the densest filling scan parameters; step S3: acquiring a corresponding melt pool dimension, and adjusting a spot compensation value based on the optimized contour scan strategy; and step S4: preparing a magnesium alloy tissue engineering scaffold based on the contour scan strategy and the adjusted spot compensation.Filed by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, published 2026-02-12 — illustrates how recent filings narrow LPBF process claims to specific alloy-and-geometry combinations rather than general process control.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20160158889A1 | Control of solidification in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing using a diode laser fiber array | 182 |
| 2 | EP2601006B1 | A method for manufacturing a component by selective laser melting | 169 |
| 3 | US20150198052A1 | Method for manufacturing a metallic or ceramic component by selective laser melting additive manufacturing | 97 |
| 4 | WO2013179017A1 | Manufacture of metal articles | 82 |
| 5 | US20170087670A1 | Method and Device for Implementing Laser Shock Peening or Warm Laser Shock Peening During Selective Laser Mel… | 69 |
| 6 | US20180322621A1 | Error detection in additive manufacturing processes | 64 |
| 7 | US20150135897A1 | Manufacture of metal articles | 55 |
| 8 | US9283593B2 | Selective laser melting / sintering using powdered flux | 55 |
| 9 | WO2014120991A1 | Selective laser melting / sintering using powdered flux | 50 |
| 10 | WO2013128416A2 | Silver-based alloy powder for manufacturing of 3-dimensional metal objects | 50 |
Citation counts accumulate over time and favour older filings; treat them as a measure of influence on later filers, 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
Three patterns stand out once the trend, the IPC split and the citation table are read together.
Growth already crested
The climb from 9 families in 2017 to 48 in 2024, followed by a decline into 2025-2026, indicates the foundational process-control claims — melt pool stabilisation, basic scan-strategy patterns — are largely filed. New entrants are more likely to find open space in narrow alloy or geometry combinations than in general process claims.
Two IPC codes carry the field
B22F (powder metallurgy) and B33Y (additive manufacturing) together dominate the dataset, while heat treatment codes C21D and C22F remain thin at 12 and 22 records. Post-build heat treatment integrated with LPBF process parameters looks comparatively under-claimed relative to its practical importance in part qualification.
No single office covers the field
United States filings lead at 114, but China follows closely at 85, with EPO at 43 and WIPO PCT at 39. A freedom-to-operate search limited to the USPTO alone would miss a large share of the tracked prior art, particularly on the China side.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to laser powder bed fusion process, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where momentum has gone quiet
Recent-year momentum across the tracked assignees is uniformly low: most large filers show zero families in the latest year, and one shows a full year-on-year drop, consistent with the plateau visible in the aggregate trend.
Large incumbents have gone quiet
Assignees including Siemens, General Electric, Renishaw and Lawrence Livermore National Security show zero families in the latest tracked year, and Raytheon Technologies recorded a -100% year-on-year change. This does not mean these organisations have exited LPBF — it is consistent with the broader publication-lag effect and a maturing claim landscape.
Co-filing is rare and concentrated
Only two co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset. The stronger pairing, between Lawrence Livermore National Security and Seurat Technologies, spans five joint families, suggesting a sustained lab-to-startup collaboration rather than a one-off joint filing.
One recent filer still active
Against a field where most tracked incumbents show no recent activity, Nikon SLM Solutions recorded one family in the latest year — a modest but notable signal of continued prosecution while others pause.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Nikon SLM Solutions AG | 1 | — |
| Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC | 0 | — |
| Raytheon Technologies Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Renishaw plc | 0 | — |
| Siemens AG | 0 | — |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| Alstom Technology Ltd | 0 | — |
| General Electric Technology GmbH | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The aggregate numbers point to specific next checks rather than a single conclusion.
Run a freedom-to-operate check across offices
With US, China, EPO and WIPO all carrying meaningful shares of the 306 families, a single-office search will leave gaps. Cross-reference claim language across the receiving offices before committing to a filing strategy.
Explore in EurekaTest the thin IPC branches for open claim space
Heat treatment codes (C21D, C22F) and metal-working (B23P) sit well below the B22F/B33Y core. Confirm whether that gap reflects genuine white space or simply different classification habits before drafting there.
Explore in EurekaWatch the quiet incumbents for renewed filing
Several major assignees show zero recent-year families, which given publication lag could reverse quickly. Set an alert on the largest historical filers rather than assuming they have exited the space.
Explore in EurekaCommon questions about LPBF patent activity
The dataset's assignee ranking is dominated by established equipment and aerospace-adjacent players alongside research institutions, with the ranking table itself showing the current order by family count. Momentum has slowed broadly across these incumbents, with most showing zero new families in the latest tracked year, so a leaderboard position built on older filings does not necessarily indicate current filing activity. Checking both the cumulative ranking and the recent-year momentum figures together gives a more accurate read on who is actively prosecuting new claims versus defending older ones.
No — filings rose from 9 families in 2017 to a peak of 48 in 2024, then declined into 2025 and 2026. Some of that recent drop is an artefact of publication lag, since applications filed in the last 12-18 months have not all published yet, but the shape of the curve after the 2022 midpoint of 26 families already points to a plateau rather than continued growth. This is consistent with a technology whose foundational process claims — melt pool control, basic scan strategy — are largely staked out, pushing new filers toward narrower, more specific combinations.
The United States leads with 114 tracked families, followed by China at 85, the European Patent Office at 43 and the WIPO PCT route at 39, with India and Canada trailing at single digits. Because the US and China together account for the large majority of activity, any competitive or freedom-to-operate review should cover both offices rather than relying on one. The PCT figure also matters: 39 international filings suggest a meaningful share of applicants are still pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than filing nationally only.
Claim density concentrates in two IPC subclasses: B22F (powder metallurgy), covering 271 of 306 records, and B33Y (additive manufacturing), covering 251. Welding and laser-joining codes (B23K) and alloy composition (C22C) form a secondary tier, while heat treatment (C21D, C22F) and general metal working (B23P) are comparatively thin. That imbalance suggests core powder-handling and build-process claims are dense, while post-build treatment integrated with LPBF parameters has more room.
In patent drafting they are treated as overlapping terms for the same underlying process — fusing metal powder layer-by-layer with a laser — and this dataset's search string treats 'laser powder bed fusion', 'selective laser melting' and 'metal powder bed fusion' as equivalent terminology to capture the full field. Different assignees and different eras of filing favour one term over another, so a search restricted to only one phrase will systematically miss relevant prior art. Combining all three terms with the relevant IPC codes, as this dataset does, is the more reliable approach for a thorough landscape or freedom-to-operate search.
Research Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole laser powder bed fusion process 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.