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 →Filing growth compares 2021 (29 records) with 2024 (22) — 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 1,115 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
This landscape tracks 1,115 patent families filed against a search string combining polyimide and polyimide film terms with molding-process language — compression molding, film casting, extrusion molding, shaping process — restricted to the core IPC classes for polymer shaping (C08J5/18, B29C43, C08L79/08). The window runs from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, with the most recent year necessarily partial since publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months.
The technology composition skews heavily toward polymer chemistry classes — C08L, C08G, C08J and C08K together account for the bulk of records — with process-hardware classes B29C and B29K present but smaller. That split says the claim space is dominated by formulation and film-property work built around molding steps, rather than by molding equipment itself.
Two views of the same 1,115-family dataset: activity over time, and where those families sit across the polymer and processing IPC classes.
Annual filings rose from 18 in 2017 to a peak of 45 in 2020, held near 32 at the 2022 midpoint, and have since declined toward 7 in the most recent partial year. Read the tail end as an artefact of publication lag, not a real drop-off — but the shape from 2017 to 2022 is a genuine plateau after growth, not sustained expansion.
C08L (polymer compositions, 885 records) and C08G (condensation polymers, 515) lead the IPC composition, with C08J (polymer processing, 431) and C08K (additives, 366) close behind. B29C (shaping of plastics, 207) and B29K (moulding materials index, 108) are present but represent a minority share — most of the documented invention activity concerns what goes into the polyimide, not the equipment that shapes it.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,115 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about polyimide molding process and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaAn extruded multi-layer polyimide film comprises at least one thin layer with a thickness of not more than 10 µm comprising an aromatic polyimide derived from an aromatic tetracarboxylic acid compound and an aromatic diamine having two or more benzene rings, unitarily arranged on a base layer comprising an aromatic polyimide derived from a biphenyltetracarboxylic acid compound and a phenylene diamine. The film is produced by multi-layer extrusion molding — a casting method of casting solution.Filed by UBE INDUSTRIES LIMITED; illustrates the layered-film, casting-based approach that recurs across the most-cited records in this set.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4595548A | Process for preparing essentially colorless polyimide film containing phenoxy-linked diamines | 250 |
| 2 | US4603061A | Process for preparing highly optically transparent/colorless aromatic polyimide film | 184 |
| 3 | US6919422B2 | Polyimide resin with reduced mold deposit | 171 |
| 4 | JP1986264028A | Polyimide film having high dimensional stability and production thereof | 94 |
| 5 | US4895972A | Process for lowering the dielectric constant of polyimides using diamic acid additives | 92 |
| 6 | US6150456A | High dielectric constant flexible polyimide film and process of preparation | 89 |
| 7 | US6159611A | High dielectric constant flexible polyimide film and process of preparation | 82 |
| 8 | US5670052A | Separating aromatics from non-aromatics by polyimide-polyester membrane | 77 |
| 9 | US7026032B2 | Polyimide based compositions useful as electronic substrates, derived in part from (micro-powder) fluoropolym… | 73 |
| 10 | US4816516A | Polyimide resin-fluoropolymer compositions | 64 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to be cited — read them as a signal of historical influence within this search corpus, not as a ranking of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
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 →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 →Four patterns stand out once the raw counts are read against each other.
After rising from 18 filings in 2017 to a peak of 45 in 2020, annual filings held near the 2022 midpoint of 32 before tapering. Even allowing for publication lag on the most recent years, the underlying trend from 2017 to 2022 is flat-to-declining rather than expanding.
EPO (289) and Japan (278) each exceed US filings (214), with China (142), WIPO/PCT (54) and Canada (30) trailing. A clearance or freedom-to-operate search confined to US filings would miss the majority of the documented record.
C08L (polymer compositions) alone touches 885 of the 1,115 records, roughly four times the count in B29C (shaping of plastics, 207). Most of the occupied claim space concerns the polyimide formulation itself, with molding-equipment claims comparatively thin.
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear across the entire dataset, and the strongest three all involve the same corporate assignee paired with different named inventors. Most filers in this space patent independently rather than through joint ownership.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to polyimide molding process, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| SABIC Innovative Plastics IP B.V. | ODLE ROY RAY | 10 |
| SABIC Innovative Plastics IP B.V. | MULLEN TARA J | 8 |
| SABIC Innovative Plastics IP B.V. | HAGBERG ERIK | 8 |
| SABIC Innovative Plastics IP B.V. | CHAN KWOK PONG | 8 |
| Mitsui Chemicals, Inc. | NTN Corporation | 7 |
| NTN Corporation | YOBEA RULON INDS | 7 |
| Mitsui Chemicals, Inc. | NTN RULON CORP | 4 |
| E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) | ZAHR GEORGE ELIAS | 4 |
The strongest co-assignee links all run through a single corporate filer paired with different named inventors — a sign of internal inventor teams rather than cross-company joint filing.
The most active filers span Japanese, Chinese and US-headquartered organisations, but recent-year activity across all of them has gone quiet.
The assignee ranking spans 1,115 patent families, but recent-year momentum data shows the same handful of names — spanning UBE, Toray, DuPont, Mitsubishi Gas Chemical, Mitsui Chemicals and SABIC's IP entity — recurring at the top across the full window.
Every one of the six most-tracked assignees — including UBE, Toray, DuPont and both major Japanese and Chinese chemical groups — shows zero filings in the latest year in this dataset. That is consistent with publication lag rather than a real exit, but it means recent competitive moves are not yet visible here.
Only ten co-assignee pairs exist in the dataset, and the three strongest all pair the same corporate assignee with different named inventors rather than with another company. Cross-company joint ownership is effectively absent from this landscape.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Mitsui Chemicals, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. | 0 | — |
| E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) | 0 | — |
| SABIC Innovative Plastics IP B.V. | 0 | — |
| UBE Corporation | 0 | — |
| Toray Industries, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Kaneka Corporation | 0 | — |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
The dataset points to specific follow-up work rather than a single conclusion.
With C08L formulation classes outweighing B29C process classes roughly four to one, a claim-level read of the process-hardware filings would clarify how much genuine freedom to operate exists on the equipment side.
Explore in EurekaZero recent-year filings across every leading assignee is most likely a reporting artefact; revisit this trend once filings from the last 18 months have published to see whether the plateau holds.
Explore in EurekaWith EPO and Japan filings each ahead of US filings, any freedom-to-operate work should extend beyond a US-only search.
Explore in EurekaThis landscape tracks 1,115 patent families published between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off, built from a search combining polyimide and polyimide film terminology with molding-process language across the core polymer-shaping IPC classes. That figure counts families rather than raw documents, which neutralises inflation from continuations and multi-jurisdiction refiling of the same invention. The true current total is likely somewhat higher because publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months, so the most recent year in any count understates real activity.
Based on this dataset, growth has stalled rather than continued. Annual filings rose from 18 in 2017 to a peak of 45 in 2020, held near 32 at the 2022 midpoint, and have since tapered toward 7 in the latest partial year. Even discounting the most recent one to two years for publication lag, the 2017-2022 trajectory reads as a plateau after an earlier growth phase, not sustained expansion.
The assignee ranking is led by a recurring set of Japanese, Chinese and US-headquartered organisations, including UBE, Toray, DuPont, Mitsubishi Gas Chemical, Mitsui Chemicals and SABIC's intellectual-property entity, across 1,115 tracked families. Notably, every one of these leading assignees shows zero filings in the most recent year in this dataset, which is most plausibly explained by publication lag rather than an actual pullback. Confirming current competitive posture requires waiting for the last 18 months of filings to publish.
The receiving-office data shows Europe (EPO, 289 filings) and Japan (278) each ahead of the United States (214), with China (142), the WIPO/PCT route (54) and Canada (30) trailing behind. A clearance search or filing strategy built only around the US would miss the majority of the documented activity in this space. Given the EPO and Japan weighting, any freedom-to-operate work in polyimide molding processes should extend to those offices as a baseline, not an afterthought.
EP0431636A1, filed by UBE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, claims an extruded multi-layer polyimide film with a thin outer layer (10 µm or less) of one aromatic polyimide composition on a base layer of a different aromatic polyimide composition, produced by multi-layer extrusion molding — a casting method. It blocks work that falls within that specific layered-composition-and-casting combination, but it does not on its own cover single-layer films, non-extrusion casting routes, or layer compositions outside the claimed tetracarboxylic acid and diamine chemistries. Anyone designing near it should check layer count, thickness thresholds and the specific aromatic chemistries claimed before assuming clearance.
Go past this page: query the whole polyimide molding process 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.