Metal Binder Jetting Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 79.2% concentration. the top five assignees combined account for 19 of the 24 records in scope, with a single leader holding 9.
- Filing peaked in 2022 at 10 records and has not exceeded that midpoint since, pointing to a flat-to-declining filing trend rather than continued acceleration.
- Powder metallurgy classes dominate the claim space, with B22F present in 91.7% of records and B33Y additive-manufacturing classes in 75.0%, leaving thinner coverage in shaping and joining classes.
What the patent record shows about metal binder jetting
Metal binder jetting patents in this dataset cluster tightly around core powder-bed mechanics: depositing a binder into a powder bed to form a green part, then removing that binder and consolidating the part through debinding and sintering. The scope here is deliberately narrow — it targets records that specifically address green part handling, debinding, sintering shrinkage, residual porosity, or powder spreadability, rather than every additive manufacturing filing that happens to mention binder jetting.
With only 24 records in scope, this is a small, specialist corpus rather than a broad technology field. That makes concentration figures and class shares more informative than raw counts: a handful of assignees and a narrow set of IPC subclasses account for nearly all of the activity, and the gaps between them are where the field is still open.
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 24 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent year understates real filing activity.
Filing trend, 2015–2026
Filing rose to a peak of 10 records in 2022, the dataset's midpoint year, and has not returned to that level since — evidence of a flat or declining trend rather than sustained growth. The most recent years should be read with the publication lag in mind, since 2026 filings will not fully appear in the record for some time.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
B22F (powder metallurgy) appears in 91.7% of the 24 records and B33Y (additive manufacturing) in 75.0%, confirming that claims center on powder handling and layer-wise build mechanics. C22C (alloys) reaches 37.5%, while B29C, B28B and B23K each cover a smaller slice — signalling that shaping, ceramics-adjacent, and joining techniques are claimed far less often. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to more than 100% and should be read against the 24-record total, not against each other.
Shares are the percentage of the 24 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Metal Binder Jetting with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about metal binder jetting and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited filings in this dataset
In-situ reactive curing and infiltration in binder jet additive manufacturing
The filing covers a binder jet additive manufacturing method that feeds powder particles to a powder bed, delivers an organic binder to form a porous green part, and introduces a secondary component that chemically reacts with the binder to form a solid polymer matrix around the powder particles. The secondary component can be infiltrated into the already-formed green part or pre-combined with the powder before it reaches the bed. A binder system for this reactive approach is also claimed.Filed by UT-Battelle, LLC, published 2024-01-18.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20190217385A1 | Large-scale binder jet additive manufacturing system and method | 16 |
| 2 | EP3511094A1 | Large-scale binder jet additive manufacturing system and method | 14 |
| 3 | US20240017484A1 | In-situ reactive curing and infiltration in binder jet additive manufacturing | 4 |
| 4 | US20230125609A1 | Alloy compositions | 1 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings, since they have had more time to accumulate citations — treat them as a signal of influence, not of current importance.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (4 of 4 rows); 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 R&D and IP strategy
Three patterns stand out once family counts, filing trend and technology composition are read together.
Claim ownership sits with a small group
Of the 24 records in scope, the top five assignees combined hold 19 — 79.2% of the field — with a single leader holding 9 records outright. The remaining ranked assignees each hold small counts down to a single record at tenth place, meaning most of the competitive contest is really a contest among a handful of players, not a broad field of active filers.
Activity has flattened since its 2022 high
Filing built up to a peak of 10 records in 2022 and has not matched that level in any year since, consistent with a flat or declining trend at the dataset's midpoint rather than accelerating growth. Given the typical 18-month lag between filing and publication, the most recent years understate true activity, but the multi-year plateau before that lag window still points to a maturing rather than expanding filing pattern.
Claims concentrate on powder handling and build mechanics
B22F powder metallurgy classes and B33Y additive manufacturing classes together dominate the corpus, at 91.7% and 75.0% of the 24 records respectively. Alloys (C22C, 37.5%) form a secondary cluster, while shaping-of-plastics, ceramics-adjacent shaping, and welding/brazing classes each appear in well under a fifth of records, indicating those adjacent process steps are comparatively under-claimed.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to metal binder jetting, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gate to entry sits
The assignee ranking returned here covers 10 companies in total — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, the complete list the dataset produces for this search. Filing is concentrated at the top, with a steep drop from the leader's 9 records down to single-digit and single-record counts by the lower ranks.
One assignee anchors the field
The leading assignee holds 9 of the 24 records in scope, well ahead of the rest of the ranked list. That single-assignee weight, combined with the top-five share of 79.2%, means a freedom-to-operate review in this space should start with the leader's portfolio before looking anywhere else.
The bottom of the ranking is thin
Fifth place and tenth place both sit at a single record, showing a sharp drop-off from the concentrated top of the list. Entrants outside the leading names are filing narrowly, often around a specific process variant rather than building a broad portfolio.
No assignee shows fresh filing momentum
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including the field leader, shows 0 records in the latest year, and one shows a -100% year-on-year change. Read alongside the 2022 peak and the publication lag, this suggests filings from the newest period simply have not surfaced yet rather than a confirmed stop in activity — but it also means no single company is visibly pulling ahead right now.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| HOEGANAES CORP | 0 | — |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| EXONE OPERATING LLC | 0 | — |
| UT-Battelle, LLC | 0 | — |
| Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC | 0 | -100% |
| HOEGANANES CORP | 0 | — |
| Safran SA | 0 | — |
| Ohio State Innovation Foundation | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The figures above establish concentration, trend and class composition. Turning that into a filing or licensing decision means going deeper on specific claims and specific competitors.
Map claims against the leader's portfolio
With one assignee holding 9 of 24 records, a claim-by-claim comparison against that portfolio is the fastest way to see what freedom to operate actually looks like in this space.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTrack the under-claimed process steps
Sintering shrinkage, residual porosity and powder spreadability sit outside the densest classes — a targeted search across these terms can surface filing opportunities before they close.
Run a white space search in EurekaWatch for the publication-lag catch-up
Because the 2026 filing year is partial and publication lags filing by around 18 months, the true picture of recent activity will only become clear over the next reporting cycles.
Set a monitoring alert in EurekaCommon questions about metal binder jetting patents
The ranked list for this dataset covers 10 assignees, and it is heavily front-loaded: the top-ranked company holds 9 of the 24 records in scope, and the top five combined hold 19 records, or 79.2% of the field. That leaves the remaining ranked assignees with small counts, down to a single record at both fifth and tenth place. Anyone assessing competitive position in this space should treat the leading assignee's portfolio as the primary reference point rather than assuming activity is evenly spread.
Not based on the trend in this dataset: filing rose to a peak of 10 records in 2022, the midpoint year of the coverage window, and has not matched that level since. That pattern reads as flat or declining rather than accelerating. It is worth remembering that publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so the very latest years in any trend chart will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be — but the plateau predates that lag window and is unlikely to be fully explained by it.
Powder metallurgy (IPC class B22F) appears in 91.7% of the 24 records in scope, and additive manufacturing (B33Y) appears in 75.0%, making these the two densest claim areas by a wide margin. Alloy composition claims (C22C) form a secondary cluster at 37.5%. Shaping of plastics, ceramics-adjacent shaping, and welding or brazing classes each cover well under a fifth of records, which points to those process steps being comparatively open for new filings.
US20240017484A1, filed by UT-Battelle, LLC and published 2024-01-18, covers a binder jet additive manufacturing method where a secondary component chemically reacts with the organic binder in a green part to form a solid polymer matrix around the powder particles, either by infiltrating the already-formed part or by pre-mixing the component with the powder. It also claims a binder system built for this reactive approach. Anyone developing infiltration-based curing or reactive binder chemistries for metal binder jetting should review this filing's claim scope directly, since it sits in one of the more specific and less crowded technical routes in the dataset.
The class-level data points to several under-claimed branches: sintering shrinkage compensation, residual porosity control, and powder spreadability additives all sit outside the two dominant classes (B22F and B33Y) and are addressed by only a handful of the 24 records. Ceramics-adjacent shaping (B28B) and welding or brazing (B23K) are the thinnest classes recorded, at 12.5% and 4.2% of records respectively. These lower-density areas are where a new, narrowly drafted claim is less likely to run into dense prior art from the leading assignees.
Research Metal Binder Jetting in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole metal binder jetting 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.