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/microfiber-synthetic-leather-manufacturing-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Microfiber Synthetic LeatherMicrofiber synthetic leather manufacturing patents: mapping the composite-upper claims and the process routes still open
- One filer holds 38 of the 81 records in scope, with a long tail of single- and low-count entrants behind it.
- Filing peaked in 2020 at 6 records, and the most recent years understate real activity because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months.
- 93.8% of records sit in footwear (A43B), while coated-fabric and textile-chemical treatment classes each cover under 4% of the field.
81
Published Records
US
Leading Jurisdiction
20
Active Filers Ranked
2020
Peak Filing Year
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This landscape draws on 81 published records matched against microfiber synthetic leather and microfiber base fabric terms alongside process language covering islands-in-sea spinning, alkali reduction, needle punching, impregnation uniformity, hand feel and abrasion resistance. The scope spans 2015 through the data cut-off of 2026-07-31, and each record is treated as a patent family for ranking purposes so that continuation filings and multi-jurisdiction duplicates do not inflate any single applicant's count.
The composite is narrower than the raw phrase "synthetic leather" would suggest: it is concentrated in footwear upper construction rather than apparel, upholstery or industrial substrates, and the classification data below reflects that concentration directly.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Microfiber Synthetic Leather 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
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 81-record set: publication activity by year, and the IPC subclasses those records fall under. Because a single record can carry more than one classification, the subclass shares below sum to well over 100% of the record total.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Activity starts at 1 record in 2017 and rises to a peak of 6 in 2020. 2026 is a partial year in this dataset and should not be read as a drop-off — publication lag means recent filings have not all surfaced yet.
IPC subclass composition
A43B (footwear) covers 93.8% of the 81 records, confirming this is fundamentally a footwear-upper patent set. B29D (specific plastic articles) at 30.9% and A43D (shoemaking machinery) at 12.3% point to process and tooling claims sitting alongside the material claims; B32B (layered products) at 11.1% covers the composite-lamination angle directly.
Shares are the percentage of the 81 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 Microfiber Synthetic Leather Manufacturing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Microfiber Synthetic Leather Manufacturing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about microfiber synthetic leather manufacturing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey patents
The most-cited records in this set
Representative record
Shoe with composite upper and method of making the same (US9723895B2)
NIKE, INC.
Uppers for article of footwear may include one or more skin layers attached to a base layer, wherein the skin layers overlap with one another in varying ways, with a first skin layer overlaying a second skin layer at some locations and the second skin layer overlaying the first skin layer at other locations. At least one of the skin layers may be at least partially transparent or translucent, and the skin layers can be applied over other elements of the upper. The filing also covers production of curved tongue composite structures and a bonded hot-melt side seam.Filed by NIKE, INC., published 2017-08-08.
Highest-citation records
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20110088285A1 | Composite Shoe Upper and Method of Making Same | 243 |
| 2 | US20110088282A1 | Composite Shoe Upper and Method of Making Same | 218 |
| 3 | US8429835B2 | Composite shoe upper and method of making same | 183 |
| 4 | US20120297643A1 | Shoe with Composite Upper and Method of Making the Same | 152 |
| 5 | US20120297642A1 | Shoe with Composite Upper and Method of Making the Same | 145 |
| 6 | US20120233883A1 | Forming Portion Of An Article From Fabrication Scrap, And Products Thereof | 113 |
| 7 | US20120066931A1 | Shoe with Composite Upper and Foam Element and Method of Making Same | 95 |
| 8 | US8321984B2 | Composite shoe upper and method of making same | 94 |
| 9 | US9185947B2 | Forming portion of an article from fabrication scrap, and products thereof | 74 |
| 10 | US20140059886A1 | Composite upper for shoe with selectively disposed bonding agent | 67 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later filings, not as a measure of current commercial importance.
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 Microfiber Synthetic Leather 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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the classification data are read together.
Concentration at the top
38 of 81 records
leader's family count
One applicant dominates the composite-upper claim space
The leading assignee holds 38 of the 81 families in scope, against a fifth-place count of 3 and a tenth-place count of 1. That gap is wide enough that anyone filing composite-upper or skin-layer claims in footwear should expect to search this applicant's portfolio first, not last.
Ranking basis: 20 companies, counted in patent families
Filing history
Peak 6 in 2020
records filed
Activity is real but not accelerating on the visible record
Filings rise from 1 in 2017 to a peak of 6 in 2020, with no complete run of years long enough to support a stated growth rate. The 2026 count is a partial year and understates true filing activity because publication typically trails filing by around 18 months.
Trend basis: 2017-2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31
Classification spread
93.8% in A43B
of 81 records
Footwear dominates; material-science classes are thin
A43B (footwear) covers 93.8% of records and B29D (plastic articles) covers 30.9%, but D06N (coated and impregnated fabrics) and D06M (textile chemical treatment) each sit at 2.5-3.7%. The core islands-in-sea and impregnation chemistry that make microfiber synthetic leather work are comparatively lightly classified in this set relative to the footwear-application claims built on top of them.
Composition basis: IPC subclass share of 81 records; shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple classes
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 microfiber synthetic leather 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 Microfiber Synthetic Leather 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
Players
Who is filing, and where the field is open
The ranked leaders in this dataset are dominated by one corporate family and several named individual inventors tied to it through repeated co-assignee pairs. Behind that cluster sits a long tail of single-digit filers, including a materials-side entrant and a plastics-technology company, suggesting the upstream fibre and fabric chemistry is filed by different actors than the downstream footwear application.
Leader
38 families
of 81 records
The dominant footwear-composite filer
One applicant accounts for 38 of the 81 records in scope, with strong co-assignee pairing to several named inventors appearing repeatedly across its filings. Its representative record centres on layered skin-and-base upper construction rather than base-fabric chemistry.
Basis: assignee ranking, 20 companies
Long tail
Fifth place: 3
tenth place: 1
A wide field of low-volume filers
Past the leader, family counts drop sharply: fifth place holds 3 records and tenth place holds just 1. This spread indicates the upper-construction niche is largely owned by one party while adjacent process and material claims remain fragmented across many small filers.
Basis: assignee ranking, 20 companies
Materials-side entrants
2 named filers
outside the footwear cluster
Fabric and plastics specialists sit apart from the footwear leader
A synthetic-leather materials company and a plastics-technology company appear in the ranking without the co-assignee links that tie the footwear cluster together, pointing to a distinct upstream filing community around base-fabric and impregnation chemistry.
Basis: co-assignee pair data, 10 pairs identified
Recent-year filing momentum
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Nike, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Nike International Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Nike Innovate C.V. | 0 | — |
| KOHATSU SHANE S | 0 | — |
| JOHNSON DANIEL AKEY | 0 | — |
| DOJAN FREDERICK J | 0 | — |
| Anan (China) Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| TSENG YUNG TSUNG | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Microfiber Synthetic Leather 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
What's next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated footwear-application claim space sitting on top of a thinner, more fragmented base-fabric and chemistry layer.
Search the leader's full portfolio before filing composite-upper claims
With 38 of 81 records held by one applicant and dense citation activity around its composite-upper family, any new skin-layer or overlapping-panel claim in footwear should be checked against that portfolio first.
Explore the assignee's filings in EurekaProbe the D06N and D06M classes for open chemistry claims
Coated-fabric and textile-chemical-treatment classes cover only 3.7% and 2.5% of records respectively, well below the footwear classes. That gap is worth checking against non-footwear synthetic leather filings that may fall outside this search scope.
Run a targeted class search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Microfiber Synthetic Leather 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
Frequently asked questions
In this 81-record dataset, one applicant holds 38 families, far ahead of the fifth-place holder at 3 and the tenth-place holder at 1. That applicant's core claims centre on composite shoe uppers built from overlapping skin and base layers rather than on the base-fabric spinning or impregnation chemistry itself. Anyone designing a footwear upper around microfiber synthetic leather should review that portfolio specifically, since it is the dominant citation source in the field.
The search string combines microfiber synthetic leather and microfiber base fabric terminology with specific process language: islands-in-sea fibre spinning, alkali reduction, needle punching, impregnation uniformity, hand feel and abrasion resistance. That means the 81 records in scope are weighted toward footwear-application claims built on top of this base-fabric process, since footwear (A43B) covers 93.8% of records. Base-fabric chemistry classes such as coated fabrics (D06N) and textile chemical treatment (D06M) are present but each cover under 4% of records.
The visible trend rises from 1 record in 2017 to a peak of 6 in 2020, but there are not enough complete years in the dataset to state a reliable growth rate. The most recent years, including the partial 2026 count, understate actual filing activity because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. Treat any apparent slowdown in the last one to two years with that lag in mind rather than as a real decline.
The classification data shows a heavy concentration in footwear application (A43B) and general plastic articles (B29D), with much thinner coverage in the textile chemistry classes that govern base-fabric hand feel, impregnation penetration and coating durability. That gap suggests the specific process controls for islands-in-sea fibre ratios, alkali reduction bath uniformity and needle-punch density gradients are less densely claimed than the downstream footwear constructions built from them. A first claim in that space would likely center on a specific process parameter range rather than a finished-product structure.
The most-cited records in this set are all early composite-upper filings from the same applicant, with citation counts in the hundreds. That pattern is typical of citation data inside a searched corpus: older records simply have more time to accumulate citations, so high counts signal historical influence on later filings rather than current commercial importance. A newer, less-cited filing can still represent a more relevant claim to design around today.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Microfiber Synthetic Leather 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 Microfiber Synthetic Leather Manufacturing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole microfiber synthetic leather 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.