Multi-Jet Fusion Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 37 families, one flat peak. Filing rose to 12 in 2022 and has not exceeded that level since — the field looks settled around its existing claims, not expanding.
- Formulation outweighs the printer. Polymer additive (C08K, 18) and processing (C08J, 17) classifications each out-file the additive-manufacturing-specific class B33Y (14), showing where the real claim density sits.
- A foundational sensor claim, largely unchallenged. US20190210108A1's compaction-and-sensor architecture from General Electric remains a structural reference point that newer filers still have to navigate around.
What this patent landscape covers
Multi-jet fusion (MJF) quality control patents document the sensors, test methods and material-property checks used to verify powder feedstock and finished parts in the MJF additive manufacturing process. The dataset spans 37 patent families filed between the technology’s early activity in the mid-2010s and mid-2026, covering mechanical property testing, CT inspection and powder quality control methods specifically tied to multi-jet fusion or MJF terminology in the claims and description.
Filing activity is split across six receiving offices, with the United States and the WIPO PCT route carrying the largest share, followed by Europe, India, Australia and Canada. The technology composition leans toward polymer formulation and processing classifications rather than additive-manufacturing-specific ones, indicating that much of the patented value sits in what the powder is made of and how it behaves, not only in how the printer handles it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Thirty-seven patent families make up the documented record for multi-jet fusion quality control, filed across six receiving offices since the technology's earliest patent activity in the mid-2010s.
Filing activity has peaked and flattened
Annual filings rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 12 in 2022, and the most recent full year sits at the same midpoint level rather than above it — a pattern consistent with a field that occupied its core claim space early and has not since expanded. The most recent year is partial and will understate true filing volume once publication catches up.
Polymer formulation outweighs the printing process itself
C08K (polymer additives) and C08J (polymer processing) each carry more records than B33Y, the additive-manufacturing-specific classification — meaning more of the patented activity concerns what goes into the powder than how the printer handles it. B29C and C01B follow closely, while B82Y, H10N and B22F form a visibly thinner tail.
Shares are the percentage of the 37 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Multi-Jet Fusion Quality Control with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about multi-jet fusion quality control and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe record that still defines this space
Systems and methods for additive manufacturing powder assessment
A powder quality control system includes a powder container, a piston, and at least one sensor. The powder container is configured to contain a powder sample. The piston is configured to compact the powder sample in the powder container. The at least one sensor is configured to measure at least one parameter when the piston compacts the powder sample to facilitate determining a powder quality measurement for the powder sample.Filed by General Electric Company, 2019-07-11 — the structural reference point for compaction-based powder sensing in this dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2023001506A1 | Carbon nanotube composite comprising mechanical ligands | 13 |
| 2 | WO2019139742A1 | Systems and methods for additive manufacturing powder assessment | 10 |
| 3 | US20220305719A1 | Piezoelectric composite filaments and use thereof in additive manufacturing | 4 |
| 4 | WO2025146456A2 | Repair and optimization of nanocomposite materials | 2 |
| 5 | US20190210108A1 | Systems and methods for additive manufacturing powder assessment | 2 |
| 6 | US10906101B2 | Systems and methods for additive manufacturing powder assessment | 2 |
| 7 | US20250282621A1 | Carbon nanotube composite comprising mechanical l igands | 1 |
| 8 | CA3151973A1 | Piezoelectric composite filaments and use thereof in additive manufacturing | 1 |
Ranked by citation count within the searched corpus; older filings accumulate more citations by nature of time in circulation, not necessarily current relevance.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (8 of 8 rows); 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 citation and filing data actually indicates
Citation weight and filing volume tell different stories here — one favours an older mechanical claim, the other points to newer composite-material activity.
Composite materials draw the most downstream attention
The carbon nanotube composite ligand filing leads the citation table by a wide margin, ahead of the foundational powder-assessment patents from 2019. Citation counts favour older records within a searched corpus, so this reflects accumulated influence rather than a claim that current filers most need to watch.
Activity has plateaued at its own midpoint
Annual filings reached 12 in 2022 and the trend has not moved past that level since, despite six years of prior growth from zero in 2017. That flat trajectory, combined with several major filers showing no activity in the latest year, points to a field occupied rather than expanding.
Formulation claims outnumber process-specific claims
Polymer additive classification C08K carries more records than the additive-manufacturing-specific class B33Y, meaning powder and material composition is the more heavily claimed layer of this technology relative to the printing process it controls.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to multi-jet fusion quality control, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and who has stopped
The assignee table shows concentration among a small number of established manufacturing and electronics firms, most of which show no filing activity in the latest recorded year, alongside a smaller specialised filer that remains active at a reduced pace.
One active filer, moving at reduced pace
NANOCORE APS filed 2 records in the latest year, down 60% year-on-year, making it the only assignee in the momentum data still showing activity — everyone else in that table recorded zero in the latest year.
Early mover, now inactive in the latest year
General Electric holds the earliest and most structurally significant filing in the dataset, the 2019 compaction-and-sensor system, but shows no activity in the latest recorded year alongside several other historically active assignees.
US and PCT carry the bulk of filings
The United States and the WIPO PCT route account for the largest share of receiving-office activity, with Europe, India, Australia and Canada making up smaller portions — a filing footprint typical of a technology still primarily protected in its home and treaty markets.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| NANOCORE APS | 2 | -60% |
| HP Development Company, L.P. | 0 | — |
| Xerox Corporation | 0 | — |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| GM Global Technology Operations LLC | 0 | — |
| PERIDOT PRINT LLC | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The filing and citation patterns here point to specific follow-up work rather than a single conclusion.
Scope the powder metallurgy gap
B22F carries only 4 records against 17-18 in the polymer classes, despite powder-bed behaviour being central to MJF quality control. A targeted search would confirm whether this is genuine white space or simply classified differently.
Search this branch in EurekaCheck freedom to operate against the 2019 sensor claim
Any compaction-based powder sensing system should be checked against US20190210108A1's claim scope before development proceeds further.
Run a claim check in EurekaTrack the shift toward composite materials
The most-cited recent filing concerns carbon nanotube composite ligands rather than sensing hardware, suggesting the next wave of activity may center on material composition claims.
Monitor this assignee in EurekaFrequently asked questions
The documented set covers 37 patent families filed since the mid-2010s, concentrated in polymer additive formulation (C08K), polymer processing (C08J), and additive-manufacturing-specific methods (B33Y). The earliest and most cited example, US20190210108A1 from General Electric, claims a compaction-and-sensor system for measuring powder quality before a build. Later filings extend into composite materials and nanotechnology-adjacent formulations, shown in the B82Y and H10N classifications, which remain comparatively thin.
Filing is spread across a mix of established manufacturing and electronics firms alongside smaller specialised filers; the ranking in this dataset shows a small number of assignees with multiple families and a longer tail of single-filing entrants. Recent-year momentum data shows most of the historically active filers with no activity in the latest year, while a smaller filer, NANOCORE APS, remains active though at a reduced rate year-on-year. This suggests the identity of the leading filer has shifted since the field's 2022 peak.
Filing activity peaked in 2022 at 12 records and has not exceeded that level since, which reads as flat rather than growing when measured against the midpoint of the observed range. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent year's count is necessarily incomplete and should not yet be read as a decline. Taken together with the momentum data showing several major historical filers inactive in the latest year, the pattern looks more like consolidation around existing claims than fresh expansion.
That patent, assigned to General Electric, claims a powder quality control system comprising a container, a piston that compacts the powder sample, and at least one sensor that measures a parameter during compaction to derive a quality measurement. It blocks systems using mechanical compaction combined with in-situ sensing to generate a powder quality score, independent of the specific sensor technology used. It does not cover measurement approaches that skip physical compaction, such as optical or acoustic powder characterization performed on a loose or flowing sample.
The thinnest classifications in the dataset are B22F (powder metallurgy, 4 records), H10N (other electric solid-state devices, 5 records) and B82Y (nanotechnology applications, 6 records), all well below the 14-18 record depth of the leading polymer and additive-manufacturing classes. That gap suggests real-time, closed-loop powder-bed sensing and embedded-sensor composite materials for MJF are under-claimed relative to the depth of activity around powder formulation and general processing methods.
Research Multi-Jet Fusion Quality Control in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole multi-jet fusion quality control 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.