Laser Welding Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- Filing has peaked and turned down. Annual filings rose from 83 in 2017 to a peak of 160 in 2022, then declined toward 15 in the partial 2026 count — a maturing claim space, not a growing one.
- Automotive OEMs and battery makers dominate the assignee list. The co-filing pairs and momentum data point to a cluster of automotive and battery-adjacent filers rather than laser-equipment specialists alone.
- Adjacent IPC classes are thin. Battery (H01M), measurement (G01B) and laser-source (H01S) codes each sit far below the core B23K welding class, marking where claim density has not caught up with application interest.
What the laser welding patent record shows
Laser welding patenting concentrates on process control: keyhole stability, spatter suppression, beam oscillation patterns, penetration depth regulation and seam tracking. These are the terms assignees actually claim against, and they map onto a manufacturing problem — getting a repeatable, defect-free weld at production line speed — rather than a materials-science one.
The dataset covers 1,870 published families filed between 2015 and mid-2026, concentrated under the B23K welding, soldering and brazing subclass, with secondary activity spilling into battery assembly, dimensional measurement and laser-source hardware. Filing activity rose through the late 2010s, peaked in 2022, and has since declined — a pattern consistent with a technology whose core process-control claims are now well staked out.
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
Publication counts lag actual filing by roughly 18 months, so the drop shown for the most recent year is partly a reporting artefact rather than a real collapse in activity. Even allowing for that lag, the trajectory from the 2022 peak is downward, not flat.
A decade of rise and plateau
Filings climbed from 83 in 2017 to a peak of 160 in 2022, then fell toward 15 in the still-incomplete 2026 count. Read alongside the publication lag, this points to a technology that front-loaded its core claims in the late 2010s and early 2020s rather than one still accelerating.
Welding claims dominate; adjacent classes are thin
B23K carries all 1,870 records by definition of the search, but the next-largest classes — batteries (H01M, 116), dimensional measurement (G01B, 70), material testing (G01N, 48) and laser sources (H01S, 41) — are each an order of magnitude smaller, showing where laser welding intersects other fields without yet being heavily claimed there.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,870 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Laser Welding Technology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about laser welding technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
Laser welding method for spark plug electrode manufacture (EP3216552A1, NGK Spark Plug)
The filing describes starting laser irradiation at a fixed position without moving the beam, ramping output gradually so penetration depth reaches a target range while suppressing spatter, then moving the beam toward the weld end position while holding that penetration depth. It ties output ramp, beam dwell and travel timing together as a single controlled sequence rather than treating power and motion as independent parameters.Filed by NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., published 2017-09-13.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20160039045A1 | Methods and Systems for Characterizing Laser Machining Properties by Measuring Keyhole Dynamics Using Interfe… | 239 |
| 2 | US20070119829A1 | Orbital welding device for pipeline construction | 140 |
| 3 | US20120285936A1 | Laser welding apparatus and laser welding method | 134 |
| 4 | US6204469B1 | Laser welding system | 129 |
| 5 | WO2014138939A1 | Methods and systems for characterizing laser machining properties by measuring keyhole dynamics using interfe… | 118 |
| 6 | US5272312A | Process for quality control of laser beam welding and cutting | 117 |
| 7 | US5925268A | Laser welding apparatus employing a tilting mechanism and seam follower | 113 |
| 8 | US5961858A | Laser welding apparatus employing a tilting mechanism | 107 |
| 9 | US4691093A | Twin spot laser welding | 105 |
| 10 | US20060011592A1 | Laser welding control | 102 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more years to accumulate citations within this corpus; treat this table as a map of influential prior art, not of current filing activity.
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 in the data matter more than the raw counts: where activity concentrates, where it has gone quiet, and where receiving offices disagree about what is worth filing.
The core process-control space is largely staked out
A decline from a 2022 peak of 160 filings to 15 in the partial 2026 count, even discounting for publication lag, suggests the foundational keyhole-stability and spatter-control claims have already been filed by the incumbents most active in the space.
Filing strategy is not uniform across jurisdictions
The United States leads receiving-office volume, with China and the EPO close behind and Japan not far off; a filer targeting only one major office risks missing where a competitor has already staked a claim.
Co-filing is rare and concentrated
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, with the strongest pairing involving a major automaker and a university partner filing jointly seven times — a sign that most laser welding IP is developed and held in-house rather than jointly.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to laser welding technology, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is active, and who has gone quiet
Momentum data tells a different story from raw historical volume: several of the assignees with the largest legacy portfolios show zero filings in the latest year, which either means they have finished staking their claims or have shifted filing strategy elsewhere.
Even the most active recent filer is slowing
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management is the only assignee in the momentum data still filing in the latest year, and even there volume fell sharply year-on-year, reinforcing the plateau visible in the overall trend.
Automotive and equipment incumbents have paused filing
Toyota, General Motors, JFE Steel, Jaguar Land Rover and TRUMPF all show zero filings in the most recent year despite historical presence in the dataset, consistent with the sector-wide plateau rather than any single company's retreat.
One automaker anchors most of the joint filing activity
General Motors appears in two of the three strongest co-assignee pairs in the dataset, jointly with Shanghai Jiao Tong University and with an individual co-inventor, pointing to a deliberate applied-research filing strategy rather than incidental co-invention.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. | 1 | -67% |
| Toyota Motor Corporation | 0 | — |
| GM Global Technology Operations LLC | 0 | — |
| JFE Steel Corporation | 0 | — |
| Jaguar Land Rover Limited | 0 | — |
| TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik GmbH | 0 | — |
| LG Energy Solution, Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next questions depending on whether you are clearing a filing, tracking a competitor, or scouting acquisition targets.
Check freedom-to-operate against the cited cluster
The highest-cited records, including the interferometry-based keyhole characterization filings, sit on process-monitoring claims that recur across multiple applicants; any new filing touching real-time keyhole or penetration monitoring should be checked against this cluster first.
Explore citation network in EurekaMap the under-claimed branches before filing
Beam oscillation for battery welding and sensor-fused seam tracking show filing volume well below their apparent industrial relevance, which is where a well-drafted first claim has the most room to stand.
Run a white space search in EurekaCommon questions about laser welding patents
The dataset shows filing concentrated among automotive OEMs, their tier-one suppliers, and a small number of laser equipment makers, rather than a single dominant holder. Momentum data shows most historically prominent filers, including several major automakers and an equipment manufacturer, at zero filings in the latest year, while one electronics group remains the most recently active, albeit at reduced volume. This suggests the leaderboard by cumulative count and the leaderboard by current activity are not the same list, and both are worth checking separately.
No — filings rose from 83 in 2017 to a peak of 160 in 2022, then declined toward 15 in the partial 2026 count. Some of that recent drop is a publication-lag artefact, since filed applications typically take about 18 months to publish, so the true 2025-2026 numbers will end up higher than currently shown. Even accounting for that lag, the trend since the 2022 peak points to a plateau or gentle decline rather than continued growth.
The search terms driving this dataset — keyhole stability, spatter control, beam oscillation, penetration depth and seam tracking — represent the core process-control problems that patent claims target. These sit almost entirely within the B23K welding, soldering and brazing IPC subclass, with secondary claim activity appearing in battery assembly (H01M), dimensional measurement (G01B) and laser source hardware (H01S). A new filing is more likely to face dense prior art in core process-control claims than in these adjacent, thinner-filed areas.
The United States leads with 488 records in this dataset, followed by China at 335, the European Patent Office at 280, and Japan at 262, with WIPO/PCT and Canada as smaller secondary routes. A filer targeting only their home jurisdiction risks missing prior art or competitor filings held in a different office, particularly given how close the US, China and EPO figures are to one another.
EP3216552A1, filed by NGK Spark Plug, claims a specific sequence: starting irradiation at a fixed position without beam movement, ramping laser output to reach a target penetration depth range while avoiding spatter, then moving the beam while holding that depth. It is narrowly tied to spark plug electrode welding, so it is unlikely to block laser welding work outside that application, but any filing using a similar stationary-ramp-then-travel sequence for penetration control should be checked against it specifically rather than assumed clear.
Research Laser Welding Technology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole laser welding 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.