Metal Powder AM Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 44 families, no runaway leader. filings sit near single digits per year through 2025, with no assignee holding recent-year momentum above zero — this is still an open field, not a consolidated one.
- China dominates the filing office count. 22 of the tracked receiving-office filings are Chinese, versus 7 in the US and 6 in Japan, which changes where freedom-to-operate risk actually concentrates.
- The most-cited grants are decades old and off-topic. the top-cited records concern aluminide sheet processing from thermomechanical powder work, not laser powder bed fusion — current AM-specific claims have not yet accumulated comparable citation weight.
Filing growth compares 2021 (4 records) with 2024 (2) — 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 44 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent families at the intersection of powder metallurgy and additive manufacturing: gas-atomized and 3D-printing metal powders claimed together with particle size distribution, flowability, oxygen content, recycling or laser powder bed process language, filtered to the core IPC classes for powder metallurgy, additive manufacturing and elemental powder production. It is a narrow, deliberately technical slice rather than a broad 3D-printing search.
The 44 families span 2017 through a partial 2026, concentrated in powder metallurgy classifications with a substantial secondary cluster in additive manufacturing and alloy chemistry. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 counts will rise as later filings publish.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 44 families: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim volume.
A flat-to-declining filing curve
Filings run from a single family in 2017 to a peak of 5 in 2025, with 2022 sitting at the midpoint value of 4. That shape is closer to steady, low-volume activity than to a technology in a growth phase — read the 2026 figure as understated given publication lag, not as a real drop-off.
Powder metallurgy carries the volume, additive manufacturing is the secondary layer
Every tracked family touches B22F (powder metallurgy), and more than half also carry a B33Y additive-manufacturing classification. C22C alloy-composition and C21D heat-treatment codes appear often enough to matter, while F16J, G11B, H01F and B29C show up only at the edges — signs of powder metal AM work reaching into sealing, data-storage and polymer-adjacent applications rather than a separate claim front.
Shares are the percentage of the 44 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Metal Powders for Additive Manufacturing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about metal powders for additive manufacturing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Method for making powder metal prototypes by 3-D printing (US12103075B1)
This invention is based upon the discovery that prototype parts having physical characteristics that mimic those of powder metal parts can be made by laser powder bed fusion techniques in cases where water or gas atomized powder metals are employed in the laser fusion procedure. Parts made with unique printing parameters to create desired porosity levels have densities and microstructures approximating those made using conventional powder metal manufacturing techniques.Filed by Keystone Powdered Metal Company, granted 2024-10-01 — ties porosity-controlled laser powder bed fusion directly to conventional powder-metal part equivalence.
View full filing| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6030472A | Method of manufacturing aluminide sheet by thermomechanical processing of aluminide powders | 54 |
| 2 | US20030082066A1 | Method of manufacturing aluminide sheet by thermomechanical processing of aluminide powders | 41 |
| 3 | US6332936B1 | Thermomechanical processing of plasma sprayed intermetallic sheets | 36 |
| 4 | US6660109B2 | Method of manufacturing aluminide sheet by thermomechanical processing of aluminide powders | 19 |
| 5 | CN111318717A | 一种3D打印回收金属粉末的再生方法 | 12 |
| 6 | JP1994322416A | Atomized powder of low-oxygen rare earth alloy and its production | 10 |
| 7 | CN113134617A | 等离子球化脱氧3D打印金属粉体制备装置 | 8 |
| 8 | CN111992728A | 一种增材制造用球形金属粉末的制备方法 | 8 |
| 9 | CN107999776A | 一种3D打印金属粉末的制备工艺 | 8 |
| 10 | US6293987B1 | Polymer quenched prealloyed metal powder | 7 |
Citation counts favour older records inside any searched corpus; treat this table as a map of prior influence, not of current commercial relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 data implies for R&D and IP strategy
Three observations that follow directly from the filing trend, IPC spread and citation pattern above.
A low, steady filing rate, not a boom
Activity moved from a single family in 2017 to a peak of 5 in 2025 without a sustained ramp in between — 2022's count of 4 sits almost at the peak already. That flat trajectory suggests the core process claims (atomization, particle sizing, flowability control) were staked out early and later filers are adding narrow variants rather than opening new ground.
China is the volume filer, not necessarily the enforcement risk
Chinese receiving-office filings outnumber the US and Japan combined. For a team assessing freedom to operate, that shifts diligence priority toward Chinese filings even though litigation and licensing activity for powder-AM patents has historically centred on US and European grants.
The most-cited prior art predates laser powder bed fusion
The heaviest-cited records in this corpus concern thermomechanical processing of aluminide sheet from plasma-sprayed or atomized powders — adjacent metallurgy, not additive manufacturing proper. Newer AM-specific claims, including the representative filing above, have not had time to accumulate comparable citation counts, so citation rank here should not be read as a ranking of current relevance.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to metal powders for additive manufacturing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape: dispersed, no recent leader
No assignee in this dataset shows filing activity in the latest tracked year — the recent-year momentum figures for the most visible names, including a major industrial gas-turbine filer and several Japanese steelmakers and universities, all read zero. That is consistent with a field where the named leaders built their positions earlier and current activity has moved to smaller or newer entrants not yet visible in the ranking.
A long tail, not a duopoly
With only one identified co-assignee pairing in the entire dataset (two Chinese geoscience universities collaborating once), most families are filed independently. That points to fragmented, single-institution R&D rather than joint-venture or consortium-driven development.
Named leaders have gone quiet in the most recent tracked year
Every assignee surfaced in the momentum data — including large industrial and academic names — shows zero filings in the latest year. Given the publication lag, this may reflect filings still in the pipeline rather than a genuine pullback, but it also means the visible ranking is a lagging picture of who was active two or three years ago.
China is the single largest receiving office by a wide margin
Chinese-office filings make up half the tracked corpus, ahead of the US, Japan, Europe, Australia and Austria combined. Any competitive-monitoring programme for this space needs Chinese-language search coverage to avoid missing the majority of new filings.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Philip Morris | 0 | — |
| Chrysalis Technologies Incorporated | 0 | — |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| Bomay AM (Boeing AVIC Additive Manufacturing Technology Co., Ltd.) | 0 | — |
| Sanyo Special Steel Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Shandong University of Technology | 0 | — |
| Ningxia Kocel Machine Tool Auxiliary Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The landscape above is a starting point for claim-level and competitor-level work that a static report cannot do on its own.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on a specific alloy or process step
Filter to the exact powder chemistry, particle size range or laser process parameter you plan to claim and check it against the Chinese-office filings that make up half this corpus.
Open Eureka to search this spaceTrack the assignees showing zero recent momentum
Confirm whether the quiet leaders in this dataset have filings still in the publication pipeline before concluding they have exited the space.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaDraft around the thin sub-areas
Use the under-claimed branches — recycling loops, oxygen-content control, magnetic and sealing applications — as a starting point for a first-claim draft rather than the crowded core powder metallurgy space.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about metal powder AM patents
Within this 44-family dataset there is no single dominant assignee — filings are spread across a long tail of industrial, academic and individual filers, and every one of the most visible names shows zero filings in the latest tracked year. This is a fragmented field rather than one controlled by a handful of large portfolios. Anyone doing competitive tracking should watch the filing trend over multiple years rather than assume any one name has locked up the space.
The filing trend is flat to declining rather than growing: activity moved from a single family in 2017 to a peak of 5 in 2025, without a sustained ramp in between. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the partial 2026 figure understates real activity and should not be read as a genuine drop. Overall, this reads as a mature, low-volume filing pattern rather than an emerging boom.
China is the largest receiving office in this dataset by a wide margin, accounting for half of all tracked filings, ahead of the US and Japan. A freedom-to-operate search limited to English-language, US and European sources would miss the majority of relevant filings. Chinese-language patent search coverage is essential for this specific technology area.
US12103075B1, assigned to Keystone Powdered Metal Company, claims a method for making powder metal prototypes using laser powder bed fusion with water- or gas-atomized powder metals, using printing parameters that control porosity to approximate the density and microstructure of conventionally made powder metal parts. It does not claim atomization or powder production itself, only the specific printing approach for prototype equivalence to conventional powder metal manufacturing. Anyone designing a competing laser powder bed process should check whether their porosity-control approach falls inside or outside its specific parameter claims.
Based on the IPC composition, dedicated coverage thins out sharply outside the core B22F powder metallurgy and B33Y additive manufacturing classes. Powder recycling and reclamation, oxygen-content control in recycled feedstock, and applications of powder-AM parts in magnetic components or sealing hardware each show only a handful of overlapping families. These branches are candidates for new claim drafting precisely because the core process space is already densely occupied.
Not directly. The most-cited records in this corpus, including US6030472A with 54 citations, concern thermomechanical processing of aluminide sheet from plasma-sprayed or atomized powders — adjacent metallurgy that predates laser powder bed fusion as a process. Newer AM-specific patents simply have not had enough time in the corpus to accumulate comparable citation counts, so high citation rank here signals historical influence on powder metallurgy generally, not current relevance to AM-specific claims.
Research Metal Powders for Additive Manufacturing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole metal powders 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.