Book a demo

Powder Metallurgy Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026

Powder Metallurgy Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/powder-metallurgy-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Powder Metallurgy
Powder metallurgy patents: mapping the leaders, the claim density and the open branches
  • Concentration is modest at the top. the five most active filers hold 13.9% of all 3,235 records in scope, and the next five add only another 6.2 points — most of the field sits in a long tail.
  • Filing has cooled from its 2018 peak. 191 records that year against 129 in 2021 and 87 in 2024, a -33% move over that three-year span, though 2025-2026 figures are still filling in under publication lag.
  • Alloys and powder processing dominate the IPC mix. C22C and B22F together cover the majority of records, while additive manufacturing (B33Y) and ceramics (C04B) sit in the single digits — a much smaller, more open footprint.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
3,235
Published Records
14%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-33%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (129 records) with 2024 (87) — 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 3,235 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape draws on 3,235 published records filed or published between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off, captured where powder metallurgy and metal powder processing terms intersect with ore composition, metal recovery, separation reagents, process residue, mechanical property and metal melt language. That intersection biases the corpus toward records that connect powder consolidation and sintering work to upstream metallurgical inputs and downstream mechanical performance, rather than pure process-equipment filings.

Records are grouped into patent families for the assignee ranking, which is the fairer unit here because it removes the effect of continuations and multi-jurisdiction filing strategies that can inflate a single applicant's raw document count.

Filing activity and technology composition, 2017-2026
  1. 1GENERAL ELECTRIC CO128
  2. 2ALCOA INC112
  3. 3SEIKO EPSON CORP85
  4. 4BAKER HUGHES CO73
  5. 5LYTEN INC53
  6. 6DESKTOP METAL INC45
  7. 7CENT SOUTH UNIV44
  8. 8ARCONIC TECHNOLOGIES LLC41
  9. 9UNIV OF SCI & TECH BEIJING35
  10. 10SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES LTD35
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Powder Metallurgy Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
The Data

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 3,235 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.

Filing trend, 2017-2026

Filings ran from 151 in 2017 to a peak of 191 in 2018, then eased to 129 by 2021 and 87 by 2024 — a -33% move over that span. 2025 and 2026 counts (down to 19 for the partial latest year) understate real activity because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months; treat the last two years as incomplete, not as a genuine drop-off.

Filing trend, 2017-2026050100150200151201719120182019202020212022202320242025192026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

IPC subclass composition

C22C (Alloys) appears on 53.2% of the 3,235 records and B22F (Powder metallurgy) on 45.1%, confirming these two subclasses as the structural core of the field. C22F (non-ferrous treatment, 11.6%), B22D (casting, 8.8%), B33Y (additive manufacturing, 6.2%), C23C (coating, 5.8%), C21D (heat treatment, 4.9%) and C04B (ceramics, 3.7%) each cover a much smaller slice, and because records can carry multiple classes these shares add to more than 100%.

IPC subclass compositionC22C · Alloys1,72253.2%B22F · Powder metallurgy1,46045.1%C22F · Non-ferrous metal treatment37511.6%B22D · Metal casting2868.8%B33Y · Additive manufacturing (3D pri…1996.2%C23C · Coating & surface deposition1875.8%C21D · Heat treatment of metals1604.9%C04B · Ceramics, cement & refractories1203.7%Other2,40774.4%

Shares are the percentage of the 3,235 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Powder Metallurgy Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Powder Metallurgy Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about powder metallurgy patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key Patents

A representative filing and the most-cited prior art

Representative Filing
US20110314964A12011-12-29

Binder composition for powder metallurgy, compound for powder metallurgy, and sintered body

SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION

Discloses a binder composition for powder metallurgy combining a hydrocarbon-based resin and wax with the compound's metal powder, controlling oxygen content to 20 mass % or less and fixing the resin-to-wax mass ratio between 1 and 2. A preferred variant adds a copolymer built from a cyclic-ether-group monomer and a second monomer, aimed at binder removal behaviour during sintering.Filed by Seiko Epson Corporation, published as US20110314964A1.

View full filing
Most-cited records in this corpus
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US20160045841A1New and improved system for processing various chemicals and materials860
2US20100291401A1Reticulated mesh arrays and dissimilar array monoliths by additive layered manufacturing using electron and l…281
3US20070150068A1Gradient porous implant279
4US20170014169A1Methods, devices, and manufacture of the devices for musculoskeletal reconstructive surgery271
5US3852045AVoid metal composite material and method258
6US7578851B2Gradient porous implant235
7WO2014153570A2New and improved system for processing various chemicals and materials219
8US5169597ABiocompatible low modulus titanium alloy for medical implants216
9US4398952AMethods of manufacturing gradient composite metallic structures214
10US20170170477A1Novel materials with extremely durable intercalation of lithium and manufacturing methods thereof190

Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence, not of current technical relevance.

Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Powder Metallurgy Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis

 
Where to run it
Fastest

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 →
For builders

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 →
Insights

What the numbers mean for a filing decision

Three patterns worth acting on before drafting a new application in this space.

Concentration
13.9% of 3,235 records
held by the top 5 assignees

No single owner dominates the field

The leading assignee holds 128 records and the fifth-ranked holds 53 — a real gap, but not a blocking position. With the top 5 combined at only 13.9% of all records in scope and the top 10 at 20.1%, most of the corpus sits with entities that filed a handful of times each. That favours new entrants: there is room to build a position without displacing an entrenched incumbent.

Based on the 100-company assignee ranking
Momentum
-33% (2021-2024)
filing change, complete years only

Volume has cooled from its 2018 peak, not collapsed

Filings peaked at 191 in 2018 and had fallen to 87 by 2024, a -33% move across that three-year window. Several of the more active named filers show flat or falling year-on-year counts in the most recent complete year, consistent with a maturing rather than an expanding filing pattern. The 2025-2026 counts are too early to read as a trend given typical publication lag.

2021 and 2024 are the two years the reported growth figure spans
Technology mix
53.2% vs 6.2%
C22C alloys vs B33Y additive manufacturing

Claim density sits in alloys and powder processing, not in additive routes

C22C and B22F between them anchor the majority of records, meaning alloy composition and basic powder-metallurgy process claims are the most heavily occupied ground. B33Y (additive manufacturing) sits at only 6.2% of records and C04B (ceramics) at 3.7%, both far thinner than the core classes — occupied ground does not mean the technology has stalled, only that claim space there is crowded.

Shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple IPC classes
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to powder metallurgy patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Powder Metallurgy Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players

Who is filing, and where the room to move sits

The ranking spans 100 companies drawn from the full assignee list behind these 3,235 records — not a top-50 or top-100 cut of a larger universe, but the entire ranked set the dataset returns.

Leader
128 records
top-ranked assignee

A clear leader, but well short of a blocking share

The top-ranked assignee's 128 records make it the single most active filer in scope, yet that is still a small fraction of the 3,235-record total. Recent-year momentum data shows even actively-filing entities recording flat or declining counts in the latest year, which is more consistent with steady maintenance of a position than an aggressive push for new coverage.

Compare against the fifth-place count of 53
Long tail
35 records
tenth-ranked assignee

The drop-off past the top ten is steep

Tenth place holds 35 records against a leader at 128 — a fall of well over half moving down just ten positions. Below that, the ranking runs through 100 companies with counts that keep shrinking, indicating a fragmented base of applicants each protecting a narrow slice rather than a small set of firms controlling the field.

Top 10 combined: 651 records, 20.1% of all records in scope
Collaboration
10 co-assignee pairs
identified in the dataset

Joint filing is limited and concentrated in a few relationships

Only ten co-assignee pairings appear across the corpus, and the strongest of them link a corporate parent to an affiliated sintered-alloy subsidiary or to individual named inventors. That pattern suggests most filing here happens inside a single corporate entity rather than through cross-company joint development, at least at the patenting stage.

Strongest pair recorded 13 shared filings
🔍
Under-claimed branches worth a closer look
Sub-areas where IPC density is thin relative to the core alloy and powder-processing classes.
Additive-manufacturing powder feedstock claimsCeramic-metal composite sintering routesBinder-removal chemistry for sintered bodiesNon-ferrous post-treatment property controlCoating-integrated powder consolidation
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Central South University1-50%
General Electric Company0-100%
Alcoa Inc.0
Seiko Epson Corporation0
Baker Hughes Holdings LLC0
Lyten, Inc.0-100%
Desktop Metal, Inc.0
Arconic Technologies LLC0-100%
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Powder Metallurgy Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next

Where to take this from here

The dataset points to a fragmented field with a thin additive-manufacturing footprint and a filing pace that has cooled from its 2018 high without disappearing.

Check freedom-to-operate against the core classes first

Because C22C and B22F carry the bulk of claim density, any new alloy-composition or powder-consolidation filing should be checked against those classes before drafting, not against the thinner adjacent branches.

Run a freedom-to-operate search

Draft around the under-claimed branches

Additive-manufacturing feedstock claims and binder-removal chemistry sit well below the core classes in filing density, which leaves more room for a first-mover claim structured around those specifics.

Explore white space with Patsnap Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Powder Metallurgy Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about the powder metallurgy patent landscape

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Powder Metallurgy Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Powder Metallurgy Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole powder metallurgy patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.