Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/metal-powder-atomization-for-additive-manufacturing-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Additive Manufacturing MaterialsMetal powder atomization patents: who controls the process claims behind additive manufacturing powder
- Concentrated but not closed: the top 5 assignees hold 30.2% of all 311 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 44.7% — leaving a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants.
- Filing cooled after a 2022 peak: 43 records published that year, with the complete-year comparison showing 2021's 27 falling to 21 by 2024, a -22% move over that span.
- Powder metallurgy claims dominate the class mix: B22F covers 70.4% of records and B33Y (3D printing) 51.4%, meaning most filings sit at the powder-process/printing overlap rather than in downstream ceramics or polymer routes.
311
Published Records
30%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-22%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (27 records) with 2024 (21) — 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 311 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What this landscape covers
Metal powder atomization for additive manufacturing sits at the intersection of powder metallurgy and 3D printing process control. The dataset behind this page tracks 311 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026, captured through search terms spanning gas atomization, particle size distribution, satellite formation, sphericity, oxygen pickup and sieve yield — the process variables that determine whether a powder batch is printable at all. Records are drawn from filings at the USPTO, EPO, WIPO, CIPO, CNIPA and IP Australia, giving a cross-jurisdictional view of where applicants seek protection rather than just where they are headquartered.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend chart understate actual filing activity; treat 2025 and 2026 as still filling in rather than as a genuine slowdown.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Metal Powder Atomization for Additive Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Numbers
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 311-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose from 17 in 2017 to a peak of 43 in 2022. Using only the complete-year window, 2021's 27 records fell to 21 by 2024 — a -22% move — while 2025 and 2026 remain understated due to publication lag and should not be read as a continued decline.
IPC subclass composition (share of 311 records)
B22F (powder metallurgy) appears in 70.4% of records and B33Y (additive manufacturing / 3D printing) in 51.4%, confirming the core of this field is powder-process claims paired with printing application claims. C22C (alloys, 21.9%) and B29C (plastics shaping, 20.6%) trail well behind, with ceramics (C04B, 8.0%) and polymer-processing classes (B29B, B01J, C08J, each under 11%) representing smaller adjacent branches. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to more than 100% and should be read against the 311-record total, not against each other.
Shares are the percentage of the 311 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Metal Powder Atomization for Additive Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Metal Powder Atomization for Additive Manufacturing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about metal powder atomization for additive manufacturing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Filings
Most-cited and most recent records
Representative Recent Filing
Additive Manufacturing Powder And Additively Manufactured Body
SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION
Filed by Seiko Epson, this 2026 application specifies an additive manufacturing powder defined by particle diameter D50 (1.0-10.0 micrometres) and D90 (11.0-25.0 micrometres) bands measured by laser diffraction — tight distribution-band claims typical of the fine-powder end of the field rather than broad process claims.Abstract excerpted from the published application.
Highest-citation records in the corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2010007396A1 | Powder dispensing apparatus and method | 301 |
| 2 | US20110223349A1 | Powder Dispensing Apparatus and Method | 131 |
| 3 | US4731517A | Powder atomizing methods and apparatus | 106 |
| 4 | WO2018119283A1 | Aluminum alloy products having fine eutectic-type structures, and methods for making the same | 47 |
| 5 | US20190001416A1 | Metal powder atomization manufacturing processes | 46 |
| 6 | US4416600A | Apparatus for producing high purity metal powders | 45 |
| 7 | WO2019161137A1 | Aluminum alloy products and methods for producing the same | 41 |
| 8 | US9682166B2 | Additive manufacturing powder and method of manufacturing the same | 40 |
| 9 | US20160038633A1 | Additive manufacturing powder and method of manufacturing the same | 40 |
| 10 | US20170312857A1 | Methods of additive manufacturing | 38 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings; a low-citation recent record is not necessarily a weak one.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Metal Powder Atomization for Additive Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Analysis
What the filing pattern tells a decision-maker
Three read-throughs from the trend, class mix and citation data that matter more than the raw counts.
Concentration
30.2% / 44.7%
top 5 / top 10 share of 311 records
Leadership is real but not exclusionary
The leading assignee holds 46 records against a fifth-place figure of 11 and a tenth-place figure of 8 — a sharp drop-off after the top few that opens room for new entrants further down the ranking rather than a two-player market.
Based on the 96-company ranked list.
Momentum
43 in 2022, then -22% (2021→2024)
peak year vs. complete-year growth
Activity has pulled back from its peak, not collapsed
The 2022 peak of 43 records was followed by a decline through the last complete comparison year; read this as claim space cooling after a filing rush, not as the technology losing relevance, since 2025-2026 figures are still incomplete due to publication lag.
2021-2024 figures per the hero trend card.
Class overlap
70.4% B22F, 51.4% B33Y
share of 311 records
Powder process and printing claims travel together
The dominant overlap between powder metallurgy and additive manufacturing classes means most applicants are claiming the powder-to-print pipeline as one unit, leaving narrower adjacent classes like ceramics and polymer processing comparatively open.
IPC shares sum to over 100% because records carry multiple classes.
Citation skew
301 citations on the top record
vs. 46-47 on 2018-vintage filings
Influence concentrates in early dispensing-apparatus patents
The most-cited records date to earlier filing years and describe powder dispensing apparatus and atomizing methods generally, a pattern consistent with citation counts favouring age over current relevance; newer alloy- and process-specific filings carry far fewer citations so far.
Citation counts are a signal of influence, not current importance.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to metal powder atomization for additive manufacturing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Metal Powder Atomization for Additive Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Competitive Landscape
Who is filing, and where the claim space is still open
The assignee ranking covers 96 companies counted by records, from an established leader down through a long tail of single-digit filers.
Leader
46 records
leading assignee
A clear front-runner without a duopoly
The top assignee's 46 records outpace the fifth-place figure of 11 by a wide margin, but the gap between fifth and tenth (11 to 8) is narrow, indicating a cluster of mid-tier filers rather than a sharp two-tier structure.
Ranking counted in records across 96 companies.
Recent momentum
-75% to -100% YoY
among several tracked assignees
Several established filers have gone quiet in the latest year
Multiple assignees that were active earlier show sharp year-over-year drops or zero filings in the most recent year tracked — consistent with publication lag rather than necessarily withdrawal, but worth monitoring before assuming continued activity.
Momentum figures are year-over-year, latest tracked year.
Receiving offices
US 104, EPO 77, PCT 36
of 311 records
Filing strategy centres on the US and Europe, with PCT as a staging route
The United States and EPO together host the bulk of filings, with WIPO (PCT) applications at 36 acting as a pipeline into national phase; Canada, China and Australia trail as secondary but still active receiving offices.
Counts are receiving-office totals, not exclusive of overlap.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Seiko Epson Corporation | 1 | -75% |
| AP&C Advanced Powders & Coatings | 0 | -100% |
| Tekna Plasma Systems Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| JX Nippon Mining & Metals Corporation | 0 | — |
| Alcoa Inc. | 0 | — |
| Proterial, Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Jabil Inc. | 0 | — |
| Equispheres Inc. | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Metal Powder Atomization for Additive Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps
Where to take this analysis
The trend and class data point to specific next checks rather than a single conclusion.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on the under-claimed branches
Ceramic and polymer-hybrid powder routes show materially lower filing density than the core B22F/B33Y overlap; a targeted search before committing R&D spend there is cheaper than finding out later.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the mid-tier assignees, not just the leader
The narrow gap between fifth and tenth place suggests several companies are close behind the leader; watching their filing cadence is more informative than watching the top name alone.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaRevisit the 2025-2026 trend once publication catches up
The apparent pullback after 2022 is only confirmed through 2024; re-running this trend in another year will show whether the pullback continued or was an artefact of publication lag.
Monitor filing trends in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Metal Powder Atomization for Additive Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on this landscape
One assignee leads the ranked list with 46 records, well ahead of the fifth-place company at 11. The gap narrows further down the list — tenth place holds 8 records — so the field has a clear leader but not a duopoly. The full ranking covers 96 companies counted by record, meaning most participants hold only a handful of filings each.
Filing peaked at 43 records in 2022 and, using the last fully comparable years, fell from 27 in 2021 to 21 in 2024, a -22% move. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so they should not be read as evidence of continued decline. The honest read is a pullback from a 2022 high, not a collapse.
Most records sit in powder metallurgy (IPC class B22F, 70.4% of the 311 records) combined with additive manufacturing or 3D printing claims (B33Y, 51.4%). Alloys (C22C) and plastics shaping (B29C) each cover roughly a fifth of records, while ceramics and polymer-processing classes are smaller adjacent branches. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should each be read against the 311-record total, not against each other.
The class composition data shows ceramic powder atomization and polymer-metal hybrid powder blends carry noticeably fewer filings than the core powder/printing overlap, as do specific process controls like in-line oxygen pickup monitoring and satellite-particle suppression in atomization nozzles. Lower filing density in a branch does not guarantee it is unclaimed, but it is a reasonable place to start a freedom-to-operate search before committing engineering resources. Confirming this requires a targeted prior-art search rather than relying on the aggregate composition alone.
The United States receives the largest share of filings at 104 of the 311 records, followed by the European Patent Office at 77 and WIPO's PCT route at 36, which typically feeds into national phase filings elsewhere. Canada, China and Australia follow as smaller but active receiving offices. This distribution suggests applicants are prioritising US and European protection first, with PCT used as a staging mechanism rather than a final destination.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Metal Powder Atomization for Additive Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Metal Powder Atomization for Additive Manufacturing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole metal powder atomization for additive manufacturing 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.