Moisture Wicking Fabric Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
A data-backed view of moisture wicking fabric patents: who holds the largest families, how filings have trended since 2017, which IPC branches carry the claim density, and where the white space sits.
Filing growth = 2021 (3 records) → 2024 (4); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 138 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What the moisture wicking fabric filing record actually shows
Moisture wicking fabric claims sit at the intersection of knit and woven construction, fiber blending and garment design, which is why the IPC spread here is wide rather than narrow. The largest single branch, D04B knitting, covers nearly two-thirds of the 138 records in scope, but woven fabrics, outerwear construction, and even implant-adjacent classes under A61F all carry meaningful shares — a sign that wicking performance is claimed as a property layered onto many different base structures rather than one dominant fabric type.
The assignee ranking of 82 companies is concentrated but not locked down: the leader holds 24 records, and the top 5 combined reach 37.7% of all records in scope, leaving a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants below tenth place. That combination — a clear leader plus real headroom further down the ranking — is the pattern to watch when deciding where a new filing might still land cleanly.
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 138-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density behind moisture wicking fabric.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings peaked so far in 2017 at 5 records. The most recent complete comparison point shows growth of +33% from 2021 (3 records) to 2024 (4 records); 2025 and 2026 figures will rise as publication catches up with filing, so they should not be read as a slowdown.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
IPC subclass composition
D04B knitting leads at 62.3% of the 138 records, followed by D03D woven fabrics at 34.1% and A41D outerwear/garments at 32.6%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares add up to more than 100% of the record total — they describe overlap, not a partition of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 138 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Moisture Wicking Fabric Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about moisture wicking fabric patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records and a representative filing
Wicking Fabric and Garment Made Therefrom (US20090133446A1, Lenzing)
A moisture wicking fabric has one side comprised substantially entirely of inherently hydrophobic fibres such as polyester or polypropylene and the other side comprised of a mixture of hydrophobic fibres such as polyester or polypropylene and hydrophilic fibres, particularly cellulosic fibres such as cotton, lyocell and viscose rayon. A garment can be formed from such a moisture wicking fabric, for example by the whole garment knitting method, the side comprised of the mixture of fibres being the external side of the garment.Filed by Lenzing, 2009 — a dual-face construction claim that pairs a hydrophobic outer with a hydrophilic-blend inner face, built for whole-garment knitting.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5735145A | Weft knit wicking fabric and method of making same | 475 |
| 2 | US5353524A | Moisture-management sock and shoe for creating a moisture managing environment for the feet | 292 |
| 3 | US5461884A | Warp-knitted textile fabric shoe liner and method of producing same | 242 |
| 4 | US5435014A | Garment having a suspended moisture management panel | 134 |
| 5 | US5291617A | Moisture management garment | 109 |
| 6 | US5249320A | Moisture-managing bed pad and bed sheet | 105 |
| 7 | US6125664A | Brassiere, brassiere blank and methods of making same | 89 |
| 8 | US5385502A | Moisture managing brassiere for sports and general wear | 62 |
| 9 | US5433987A | Absorbent spun-laced fabric | 61 |
| 10 | US5392467A | Moisture-management garment and support pouch garment | 59 |
Citation counts favor older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate them inside this corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later filings, not as a measure of current commercial relevance.
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 concentration and composition mean for filing strategy
Reading the ranking and the IPC spread together points to where claim space is genuinely occupied and where it is thinner than the headline numbers suggest.
A clear leader, then a long tail
The leading assignee holds 24 records on its own, and the top 5 combined reach 37.7% of all records in scope. But the ranking runs to 82 companies, and fifth place sits at only 5 records — the gap between the leader and the rest of the field is wide, which usually means the leader's core claims are the ones to design around first.
Knit construction is the dominant claim surface
D04B knitting appears in 62.3% of the 138 records, well ahead of woven fabrics (D03D, 34.1%) and outerwear/garment claims (A41D, 32.6%). A new filing that leans on woven or nonwoven wicking structures rather than knit construction is working against a thinner prior-art base.
Activity is rising, not cooling off
Filings grew from 3 records in 2021 to 4 in 2024, a +33% increase over that span. The apparent dip in 2025–2026 reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than a real slowdown, so recent-year counts should be read as provisional.
Filing activity is US-centric with a European and Commonwealth tail
The United States receives the largest single share of filings at 56 records, ahead of the EPO at 20, Canada at 15 and Australia at 12. WIPO/PCT filings (9) and India (8) round out the picture, suggesting most applicants treat the US as the primary market and file selectively elsewhere.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to moisture wicking fabric patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The ranking and composition data point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio benchmarking, or spotting an open filing angle.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's claims
With the top assignee holding 24 records and the top 5 covering 37.7% of the field, a targeted claim-chart review of the leader's family is the fastest way to know what a new product design would need to clear.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaMap the under-claimed IPC branches
Classes outside D04B and D03D carry meaningfully lower shares of the 138 records, which is where a first-claim filing has more room to establish novelty rather than compete with dense prior art.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the next filing wave before it publishes
Because publication lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025–2026 counts in this dataset will keep rising. Watching new applications as they land is the only way to catch a competitor's move before it is fully visible in the granted record.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions about moisture wicking fabric patents
The ranking used in this dataset covers 82 companies across 138 records in scope, and it is a long tail rather than a single dominant holder. The leading assignee holds 24 records, and the top 5 combined account for 37.7% of all 138 records, so no single company controls a majority of the field. Below the top 10 — which together hold 52.9% of records — filing counts drop quickly, meaning most of the ranking consists of companies with only a handful of filings each. Anyone doing a competitive scan should look closely at the leader's family first, since it carries the most claim weight by volume.
The core classes are D04B (knitting), D03D (woven fabrics and weaving), A41D (outerwear and garments), A61F (implants and prostheses, relevant for wicking in medical dressings and supports), B32B (layered products and laminates), A41C and A41B (intimate apparel), and D02G (yarn texturing and crimping). D04B is the largest single branch at 62.3% of the 138 records in scope, roughly double the share of the next largest class. Because a single filing can carry several IPC codes at once, these shares overlap rather than summing to 100%, which reflects how often wicking claims combine a construction method with a garment application.
Based on the complete filing years in this dataset, activity grew: filings rose from 3 records in 2021 to 4 in 2024, a +33% increase over that span, with 2017 standing as the peak year so far at 5 records. Filing counts for 2025 and 2026 appear lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between when a patent is filed and when it publishes, not an actual drop in activity. Those most recent years will keep rising as more applications work through to publication, so they should not be read as evidence of a slowdown.
US20090133446A1, filed by Lenzing in 2009, claims a fabric with one face made substantially of hydrophobic fibres such as polyester or polypropylene and the opposite face made of a hydrophobic-hydrophilic fibre blend, including cellulosic fibres such as cotton, lyocell or viscose rayon, formed via whole-garment knitting. It is a dual-face construction claim tied to a specific fibre-pairing and knitting method, not a blanket claim over moisture wicking generally. A new design that uses a different construction method, a different face-pairing logic, or claims the wicking mechanism through a woven or laminate route rather than whole-garment knitting sits outside its literal scope, though a full claim chart is the only reliable way to confirm clearance.
The composition data points to woven, laminate and yarn-level routes as the thinner branches: D03D (woven fabrics, 34.1% of the 138 records), B32B (layered products, 23.2%) and D02G (yarn texturing, 15.9%) all carry meaningfully lower claim density than knitting. That gap does not mean those approaches are untested, but it does mean fewer prior filings stand in the way of a new claim built around a woven or laminate wicking structure rather than a knit one. Combined with the long tail below the top 10 assignees, this suggests real room for a well-drafted filing outside the dominant knit-construction cluster.
Research Moisture Wicking Fabric Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole moisture wicking fabric patent landscape 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.