Metal Injection Molding Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 49.7% of all 169 records sit with just five assignees, with the leader alone holding 22 — freedom-to-operate work here starts by clearing a short list of names, not a long tail.
- Filings fell -57% from 2021 to 2024 after peaking at 16 in 2020, though 2025-2026 figures are still filling in under the usual 18-month publication lag.
- B22F powder metallurgy anchors 82.8% of records, while ceramics integration (C04B, 8.3%) and welding/brazing steps (B23K, 11.8%) remain comparatively thin and open.
Filing growth compares 2021 (7 records) with 2024 (3) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 169 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this patent landscape covers
Metal injection molding debinding and sintering combines powder metallurgy with a molding step: a metal powder and polymer binder are shaped, the binder is chemically or thermally removed, and the resulting porous part is sintered to full density. The 169 records in scope span priority years 2015 through mid-2026 and cluster heavily around binder systems, sintering shrinkage control and dimensional tolerance — the process variables that determine whether a molded green part survives sintering intact. A smaller but distinct cluster covers additive-manufacturing variants, where a 3D-printed green body replaces the injection-molded one but goes through the same debind-and-sinter sequence.
Filing activity in this dataset is concentrated both technically and by assignee: the vast majority of records touch the core powder-metallurgy class, and roughly half of all records trace back to a small group of leading filers rather than a broad, even field.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
How filing has moved and where it concentrates technically
The 169 records in scope span 2015 through mid-2026, with a peak in 2020 and a fall-off in recent years that is partly a real slowdown and partly the normal 18-month lag between filing and publication.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings ran 11 in 2017, rose to a peak of 16 in 2020, then declined to 3 by 2024 — a -57% move over that 2021-2024 span. 2025 and 2026 are still filling in and should not be read as a continued drop.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
Powder metallurgy (B22F) anchors 82.8% of the 169 records, with alloys (C22C) and additive manufacturing (B33Y) as the next-heaviest classes. Because records can carry several IPC codes, these shares add up past 100% — they describe overlap, not a partition of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 169 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Metal Injection Molding Debinding and Sintering with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about metal injection molding debinding and sintering and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative claim and what it protects
Shrinkable support structures — US10456833B2 (Desktop Metal, Inc., 2019-10-29)
A variety of additive manufacturing techniques can be adapted to fabricate a substantially net shape object from a computerized model using materials that can be debound and sintered into a fully dense metallic part. During sintering, the net shape shrinks as binder escapes and the base material fuses; if the foundation beneath the object does not shrink correspondingly, the resulting stresses can cause fracturing, warping or other damage. The patent discloses substrates and build plates engineered to contract in a matched fashion to prevent this failure mode.Abstract shortened from the original filing for length.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20170080498A1 | Method of making a projectile by metal injection molding | 207 |
| 2 | US20160003593A1 | Method of making a metal primer insert by injection molding | 205 |
| 3 | US20170089673A1 | Polymer ammunition having a projectile made by metal injection molding | 191 |
| 4 | US9587918B1 | Ammunition having a projectile made by metal injection molding | 190 |
| 5 | US4765950A | Process for fabricating parts from particulate material | 102 |
| 6 | US10081057B2 | Method of making a projectile by metal injection molding | 89 |
| 7 | US20170297106A1 | System for fabricating an interface layer to separate binder jetted objects from support structures | 87 |
| 8 | US6705848B2 | Powder metal scrolls | 79 |
| 9 | US20020187065A1 | Method for the rapid fabrication of mold inserts | 73 |
| 10 | US5064463A | Feedstock and process for metal injection molding | 73 |
Citation counts favour older filings inside this searched corpus and should be read as a signal of influence within the dataset, not as a measure of current commercial 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 filing data signals for strategy
Three patterns stand out once the 169 records are broken down by assignee, class and citation weight: concentration at the top, a real but overstated recent slowdown, and uneven technical depth across adjacent branches.
A small group holds most of the enforceable ground
With the leading assignee at 22 records and the top 5 combined at 49.7% of the field, most freedom-to-operate risk concentrates around a handful of filers rather than being spread across the 71-company ranking.
A real decline, not yet a collapse
Filings dropped from 7 in 2021 to 3 in 2024. That is the reliable read; 2025-2026 counts are still low because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, not because activity has stopped.
The core process is heavily claimed
Powder metallurgy dominates the class breakdown, meaning most new filings in that class are competing for space against dense existing art rather than opening new ground.
Enforcement exposure is US-weighted
The United States accounts for the largest single share of tracked filings, ahead of Europe (32), China and WIPO (12 each) — most practical litigation and licensing exposure in this field sits in US prosecution.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to metal injection molding debinding and sintering, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field stays open
The 71 assignees in the ranking range from a leader with 22 records down to single-filing entrants, with the concentration sitting firmly in the top 5 and top 10 bands rather than spread evenly.
One filer sets the pace
The leading assignee's filing count alone exceeds the fifth-place holder's 13 records by a wide margin, indicating a sustained, deliberate filing programme rather than opportunistic single filings.
The next tier is still meaningfully sized
Beyond the leader, places two through ten add substantial additional share, taking the combined top 10 to 65.1% of all records — the mid-field is worth tracking for licensing and design-around risk, not just the leader.
Room remains outside the leaders
With 71 ranked assignees against 169 records, a large share of filers hold only one or a few records each — evidence that entry is still possible for firms willing to file in the less-crowded technical branches.
Even leaders show no latest-year filings
Several of the historically active assignees show zero filings in the most recent tracked year — consistent with the broader 2021-2024 decline, and a reminder that publication lag makes any single recent year an unreliable read on any one filer's current activity.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Desktop Metal, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Markforged, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Emerson Climate Technologies, Inc. | 0 | — |
| TRUE VELOCITY | 0 | — |
| Honeywell International Inc. | 0 | — |
| Copeland LLC | 0 | — |
| Lupatech S.A. | 0 | — |
| Rutgers, The State University | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis next
The dataset points to three practical follow-ups for a team deciding where to file, license or challenge in this field.
Run a claim-level check against the top-cited records
The most-cited records in this dataset, led by ammunition-projectile injection-molding claims, carry the heaviest prior-art weight — a targeted claim chart against these before drafting avoids the densest overlap.
Open claim comparison in EurekaTrack the leading assignees' latest activity directly
Several top filers show zero records in the most recent tracked year, which given publication lag may understate live programmes — monitoring filings as they publish is more reliable than relying on the last one or two years shown here.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaScope a first filing in an under-claimed branch
Ceramics integration and welding/brazing follow-on steps show materially lower filing density than the powder-metallurgy core, giving room for a narrowly drafted first claim rather than crowding into the densest classes.
Draft and check novelty in EurekaCommon questions about this patent landscape
Filing is concentrated at the top: the leading assignee alone accounts for 22 of the 169 records in scope, and the top 5 assignees combined account for 49.7% of all records. The top 10 extend that to 65.1%, which means a large share of enforceable rights sits with a small group of filers rather than being evenly spread across the 71 companies in the ranked list. That said, the ranking still includes a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants, so new entrants are not shut out everywhere.
The core class is B22F (powder metallurgy), present in 82.8% of the 169 records, reflecting the fact that most filings describe the base debind-and-sinter process. C22C (alloys) and B33Y (additive manufacturing) follow, covering material composition and 3D-printed green-part variants respectively. Because a single record often carries several IPC codes — for instance a projectile patent might sit in both B22F and F42B — these class shares add up to more than 100% of the record total and should be read as overlapping coverage, not a breakdown that sums to the whole.
Filing peaked at 16 records in 2020 and fell to 3 by 2024, a -57% move over that three-year span. That decline is measured on complete years only; 2025 and onward are still filling in because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so the most recent years understate real activity. Treat the 2021-2024 figure as the reliable read on direction, not the raw counts for the last one or two years.
The thinner branches sit outside the B22F powder-metallurgy core: ceramics integration (C04B, 8.3% of records) and welding/brazing follow-on steps (B23K, 11.8%) both show meaningfully lower filing density than the dominant classes. Co-assignee collaboration is also limited across the dataset, with only 10 co-assignee pairs recorded, suggesting these adjacent branches have not yet attracted the same collaborative filing activity as the core process. That combination — lower density, less collaboration — is what marks them as under-claimed rather than simply small.
US10456833B2, titled 'Shrinkable support structures' and assigned to Desktop Metal, Inc., was published 2019-10-29. It covers substrates and build plates engineered to contract during sintering in step with the shrinking metal part they support, addressing fracturing and warping that occurs when a green part and its foundation shrink at different rates. It sits within the additive-manufacturing branch of the field (B33Y) rather than the broader powder-metallurgy process, so its blocking effect is on shrink-matched support-structure designs specifically, not on debind-and-sinter shrinkage control in general.
Research Metal Injection Molding Debinding and Sintering in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole metal injection molding debinding and sintering 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.