CALPHAD (Calculation of Phase Diagrams) is a computational method for predicting phase stability and microstructure in multi-component alloys before physical testing. It appears in nickel superalloy patents because composition design claims increasingly cite computational screening to justify why a particular weight-percent window was chosen. In this dataset, filings referencing CALPHAD-style or data-driven prediction methods sit alongside traditional trial-and-error composition claims, and several of the most-cited records specifically cover data-driven models for predicting creep-rupture life or γ' phase evolution rather than the alloy itself.

Because 66 of the 100 families in this dataset combine a C22C alloy-composition claim with an F01D turbine or non-positive-engine claim, reflecting how the industry actually uses these alloys — almost exclusively in turbine blades, vanes and discs for aerospace and power generation. A composition claim alone is often too broad to survive prosecution against dense prior art, so applicants narrow it by tying the alloy to a specific part, like a single-crystal blade. This means searching C22C alone will miss a large share of the relevant art; F01D needs to be checked in parallel.

It is narrowing but not closed. The filing trend peaked in 2020 and has flattened since, and 97 of 100 records already sit in the core alloy-composition subclass, meaning most obvious weight-percent windows for common element combinations (aluminium, tantalum, rhenium, cobalt) are already claimed by someone. New filings tend to succeed by combining a narrow compositional tweak with a specific manufacturing step or product form rather than by claiming a wholly new base chemistry.

In this dataset, the European Patent Office leads with 24 records, followed by the United States (17), China (15), the WIPO PCT route (13), India (11) and Austria (8). The concentration at EPO and the presence of a large PCT share suggests applicants — largely aerospace and materials research groups — are seeking broad multi-jurisdiction coverage rather than filing nationally first, which is typical for high-value turbine alloy IP.

Based on the IPC breakdown, additive manufacturing (B33Y) accounts for only 3 of 100 records and powder metallurgy (B22F) for 5, against a base of 97 composition records. That gap does not mean additive routes are legally clear; it means the process-side claims are underdeveloped relative to the composition art they would need to combine with. Anyone building an AM process around an existing patented composition should still check the underlying C22C claim before assuming the additive step alone clears freedom-to-operate.