Particleboard & Fibreboard Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- Filing peaked in 2021 at 27 records, then fell 93% to just 2 by 2024 — a sharp pullback, not a gradual slowdown. the last complete year of data
- The top 10 of 72 ranked assignees hold 63.9% of all 227 records in scope, leaving a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants below them
- B27N particle/fibre board classes cover just 50.2% of records, meaning half the filings sit in adhesive, polymer or laminate classes adjacent to the core board process
Filing growth compares 2021 (27 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 227 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the patent record shows
Particleboard and fibreboard manufacturing patents cluster around mat forming, hot pressing, resin dosage and the defects that come from getting those steps wrong — blistering, uneven density profiles, and thickness swelling once the board meets moisture. The 227 records in scope span 2015 through mid-2026, with the field’s classification split telling its own story: B27N board-forming claims sit alongside a heavy presence of C09J adhesive and C08G/C08L polymer chemistry classes, because the resin system and the press cycle are claimed together as often as they are claimed apart.
Filing activity rose through the late 2010s, peaked in 2021, and has fallen sharply since — publication lag means the most recent one to two years will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be, but the drop from 2021 to 2024 is large enough to read as a real pullback in new filing rather than a reporting artefact.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 227 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A 2021 peak followed by a steep drop
Filings ran from 7 in 2017 up to a peak of 27 in 2021, then fell to 2 by 2024 — a 93% decline over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under the usual 18-month publication lag, so they should not yet be read as a continuation of the decline.
Adhesive and polymer classes rival the core board class
B27N (particle/fibre board) appears in 50.2% of records, but C09J adhesives (26.4%), C08G condensation polymers (23.8%) and C08L polymer compositions (22.5%) each cover roughly a quarter of the field — because a class can be a resin chemistry patent as easily as a forming-line patent, these shares add to well over 100% and should be read as overlap, not fragmentation.
Shares are the percentage of the 227 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Particleboard and Fibreboard Manufacturing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about particleboard and fibreboard manufacturing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this space
Method and System for Enhanced Manufacturing of Biomass-Based Products (US20090211692A1)
A method and device for manufacturing plates such as fibreboards, where biomass particles carrying a thermosetting binder are spread onto a forming belt to build a mat, then compressed to finished thickness in a hot press that hardens the binder. The invention adds ultrasound application to the process to improve manufacturing efficiency.Filed by Wesser & Dueholm, this record anchors the mat-forming-plus-hot-press claim structure that recurs across the dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20030056873A1 | Production of high added value products from wastes | 147 |
| 2 | US5435954A | Method for forming articles of reinforced composite material | 117 |
| 3 | WO2001039946A1 | Production of high added value products from wastes | 41 |
| 4 | US20130190428A1 | Wood Composite Process Enhancement | 30 |
| 5 | US6841101B2 | Production of high added value products from resin-bonded waste composite wood products | 29 |
| 6 | US5635583A | Catalytic composition and method for curing urea-formaldehyde resin | 23 |
| 7 | WO2016141126A1 | Method of making lignocellulosic composites | 20 |
| 8 | US20090326185A1 | Storage stable melamine-urea-formaldehyde resins and applications thereof | 18 |
| 9 | US20160257815A1 | Method of making lignocellulosic composites | 16 |
| 10 | US20090007931A1 | Method And Device For Drying A Flow Of Biomass Particles | 15 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records; treat this as a signal of influence within the field, not of current commercial importance.
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 numbers mean for a filing decision
Concentration, timing and classification overlap each point to a different conclusion about where new claims are likely to clear prior art.
The top of the field is dense, the rest is thin
With the leader alone at 28 records and a fifth-place holder at 14, the top 10 combined account for 145 of the 227 records in scope. Below that, the ranking of 72 assignees thins out quickly into single- and few-filing entrants, which is where most freedom-to-operate work will actually need to focus.
A sharp pullback, not a plateau
Filing rose to a peak of 27 records in 2021 and had fallen to 2 by 2024. That is a much steeper drop than a maturing-technology slowdown would produce, and it is worth checking whether it tracks a specific resin-chemistry or wood-cost cycle rather than declining interest in board manufacturing itself.
Board claims are rarely filed alone
Only half of records sit in B27N, the dedicated particle/fibre board class; adhesive and polymer chemistry classes each cover roughly a quarter of the field independently. A claim drafted purely on the mechanical forming side, without addressing the resin system, is drafting into a smaller slice of the prior art than it might appear.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to particleboard and fibreboard manufacturing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders concentrate around resin and board chemistry, while the geographic filing pattern and the thin recent-year momentum both point to a field pausing rather than one still being actively staked out.
A single filer well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 28 of the 227 records in scope, noticeably ahead of the fifth-place holder at 14 and the tenth-place holder at 9 — a steep drop-off that marks this as a concentrated rather than evenly distributed field.
One strong collaboration stands out
Of the 10 co-assignee pairs in the dataset, one pairing recurs at a scale well above the others, suggesting a long-running joint filing relationship rather than a one-off collaboration. The remaining pairs are much smaller and more incidental.
Europe leads receiving offices, the US follows closely
Europe (EPO) receives the largest share of filings at 52, with the United States at 39 and WIPO/PCT filings at 23. Canada, Austria and Australia each register in double digits, pointing to a field with meaningful but not dominant filing activity outside Europe and North America.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Cargill Inc | 0 | — |
| WESSER & DUEHOLM ARKITEKT & INGENIORFA VSTEN DUEHOLM | 0 | — |
| Force Technology | 0 | — |
| FORESA TECH S L U | 0 | -100% |
| Riverwood International Corp | 0 | — |
| EcoSynthetix Inc | 0 | — |
| Hexion Inc | 0 | — |
| Hexion Research Belgium SA | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, competitive tracking or drafting new claims.
Check the white space chips against your own claim draft
The under-claimed branches listed above are thin in this record set, not empty — verify against full claim text before assuming clear space.
Explore in EurekaWatch the co-filing relationship for signals
The strongest co-assignee pair in this dataset recurs at a scale well above the others; tracking its future filings may show where the underlying technology is heading next.
Track assignees in EurekaRe-run the trend once 2025 data settles
Publication lag means the last one to two years of filing counts are always undercounted; revisit the 2021-2024 comparison once later years are more complete.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions about particleboard and fibreboard patents
The dataset ranks 72 assignees, and the leader holds 28 of the 227 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 14. The top 10 combined account for 63.9% of all records, so filing activity is concentrated at the top but not held by a single dominant player. Anyone doing competitive tracking should watch the top 10 closely, since they collectively shape most of the claim space, while treating the long tail of smaller filers as a source of niche or emerging approaches.
Filing activity peaked in 2021 at 27 records and had fallen to 2 by 2024, a 93% drop over that span. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as confirming a continued decline. Even so, the size of the 2021-to-2024 drop is large enough that it likely reflects a genuine pullback in new filing rather than just a reporting gap.
Beyond the core B27N particle/fibre board classification, which covers 50.2% of the 227 records, adhesive chemistry (C09J, 26.4%) and polymer compositions (C08G and C08L, roughly a quarter each) are heavily represented. This means many filings are as much about the resin system as the mechanical forming and pressing process. A claim strategy that only addresses the mechanical side is missing where a large share of the competitive filing actually sits.
Based on the current record set, branches such as ultrasound-assisted mat consolidation, in-line density profile correction, and blister-defect detection during hot pressing show comparatively thin coverage relative to the dense core claims around mat forming and resin dosage. These are adjacent to, not separate from, the heavily filed core, so any new claim drafted here needs to be checked carefully against existing resin and forming patents rather than assumed to be clear. Thin coverage in a dataset is a starting signal, not proof of open space.
Europe, through the EPO, leads with 52 filings, followed by the United States at 39 and WIPO/PCT filings at 23. Canada, Austria and Australia each register double-digit filings, indicating meaningful activity outside the two largest markets. For a company scoping freedom-to-operate work, this spread suggests European and US filings should be reviewed first, with PCT applications checked for eventual national-phase entry elsewhere.
Research Particleboard and Fibreboard Manufacturing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole particleboard and fibreboard 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.