Powder Metallurgy Sintered Parts Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- Filing has cooled since its 2019 peak. 77 families published that year against 48 in 2017 and just 6 so far in the most recent, still-partial year — a flat-to-declining trend by the 2022 midpoint of 47.
- No single filer dominates the recent years. Every assignee tracked for momentum, including the most active historical filers, shows zero families in the latest year — concentration sits in the past, not the present.
- Claims cluster tightly in B22F and C22C. 1,780 of 1,882 records sit in B22F alone, while adjacent branches like additive manufacturing (66) and magnetics (58) carry a fraction of the filing density.
Filing growth compares 2021 (38 records) with 2024 (28) — 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 1,882 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the powder metallurgy sintered parts patent landscape covers
This dataset tracks 1,882 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine powder metallurgy or metal injection molding claims with process-control language such as green density, sintering shrinkage, dimensional tolerance, debinding or porosity. The IPC scope is anchored on B22F (powder metallurgy processes), B22F1 (powder pre-treatment) and C22C33 (ferrous and non-ferrous powder alloys), which together define the technical core of sintered-part manufacturing rather than end-use applications.
Filing offices skew toward the United States and Europe, with China, Japan and Canada each contributing a meaningful but smaller share, and WIPO PCT filings indicating cross-border strategies among a subset of applicants. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the drop shown in the most recent year understates real filing activity and should not be read as an abrupt stop.
Filing trends and technology composition
Annual filing counts and IPC distribution reveal a mature, process-heavy field where claim density is concentrated in a narrow set of subclasses rather than spread evenly across the value chain.
A decade of uneven filing, now flat
Filings rose from 48 in 2017 to a peak of 77 in 2019, then settled near the 2022 midpoint of 47 before tapering toward the present. The tapering in the final one or two years reflects publication lag as much as any real slowdown, but the multi-year plateau either side of the peak is a genuine signal that filing has not been accelerating.
Concentration in core powder-processing classes
B22F accounts for 1,780 of the 1,882 records and C22C for 988, confirming that most activity addresses the powder-to-part process itself and alloy composition. Downstream or adjacent classes — lubricants (C10M), additive manufacturing (B33Y), magnetics (H01F), joining (B23K), plastics shaping (B29C) and non-ferrous treatment (C22F) — each carry well under 100 records, marking them as secondary rather than core claim territory.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,882 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Powder Metallurgy Sintered Parts with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about powder metallurgy sintered parts and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in the corpus
Method of making a projectile by metal injection molding (US20170080498A1)
The application describes forming a metal ammunition projectile via metal injection molding: shaping a projectile mold with a nose, shoulder and cylindrical bearing surface, preparing a feedstock of powdered metal with two binding agents, injection molding a first-size projectile, debinding to remove the first binder, then sintering to remove the second binder and densify the part.Filed by TRUE VELOCITY IP HOLDINGS, INC., published 2017-03-23; the second most-cited record in the corpus at 207 citations.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US11045192B2 | Fabricating techniques for surgical stapler anvils | 720 |
| 2 | US20170080498A1 | Method of making a projectile by metal injection molding | 207 |
| 3 | US20160003593A1 | Method of making a metal primer insert by injection molding | 205 |
| 4 | US20050084407A1 | Titanium group powder metallurgy | 183 |
| 5 | US20180066925A1 | Metal Injection Molded Cased Telescoped Ammunition | 181 |
| 6 | US5462575A | Co-Cr-Mo powder metallurgy articles and process for their manufacture | 176 |
| 7 | US20150080495A1 | Surface modified particulate and sintered or injection molded products | 169 |
| 8 | US5482670A | Cemented carbide | 140 |
| 9 | US6521173B2 | Low oxygen refractory metal powder for powder metallurgy | 127 |
| 10 | US5778301A | Cemented carbide | 114 |
Citation counts favour older, longer-indexed records and should be read as a measure of historical influence rather than current commercial relevance.
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 filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once raw counts are read against IPC composition and office of filing.
Plateau, not growth
The field peaked in 2019 and has not returned to that level since; the 2022 midpoint of 47 sits well below the peak, indicating a mature technology base rather than an expanding one. Treat any apparent recent-year drop with caution given publication lag, but the multi-year plateau before it is real.
Core process claims dominate
Nearly all records sit in powder metallurgy process classes, with alloy composition (C22C) the only other subclass at meaningful scale. Adjacent fields like additive manufacturing and magnetics are present but thin, suggesting these intersections are still being explored rather than heavily claimed.
US and Europe lead filing venues
The United States receives close to double the filings of China and noticeably more than Europe, with Japan and Canada trailing further behind. A WIPO PCT count of 122 shows a portion of applicants pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than filing office-by-office.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to powder metallurgy sintered parts, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where it has gone quiet
The strongest co-filing relationships and citation leaders in this dataset trace back to steel and powder-metal specialists, several of them Japanese, but recent-year momentum has dropped to zero across every assignee tracked for it.
Collaboration is concentrated and sparse
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear across the corpus, with the strongest — JFE Steel and JFE Precision, filing together 12 times — well ahead of the next strongest pairs at 4 co-filings each. Most applicants in this field file solo.
Historical leaders have gone quiet
Every assignee surfaced for recent-year momentum, including Kawasaki Steel, JFE Steel, Hoeganaes Corp and NRC Canada, shows zero filings in the latest tracked year. That does not necessarily mean exit from the field — publication lag affects large filers too — but it does mean current activity cannot be attributed to any single historical leader.
Influence sits with a handful of older filings
The most-cited records, including filings tied to surgical stapler components and ammunition manufacture, draw citation counts far above the median filing. These are signals of past influence on the field's prior art rather than indicators of what is being actively claimed now.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Kawasaki Steel Corporation | 0 | — |
| JFE Steel Corporation | 0 | — |
| HOEGANAES CORP | 0 | — |
| Hoeganaes Corporation | 0 | — |
| National Research Council Canada | 0 | — |
| Seiko Epson Corporation | 0 | — |
| H.C. Starck GmbH | 0 | — |
| Honeywell International Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a mature, process-concentrated field with quiet recent-year momentum among historical leaders — the next steps depend on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate or identifying open claim space.
Map freedom-to-operate against B22F core claims
With 1,780 of 1,882 records in a single IPC subclass, a freedom-to-operate review should prioritise granular claim language within B22F and C22C before assuming adjacent classes are safer ground.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaWatch for renewed filing from quiet historical leaders
Assignees with strong historical citation counts but zero recent-year filings may resume activity once publication lag clears; tracking their filing status over the next 18 months is worth setting up now.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaTest claims in under-claimed adjacent branches
Additive manufacturing feedstock, magnetic component tolerances and multi-binder debinding control all show low filing density relative to the core — a candidate area for a first-mover claim.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about powder metallurgy sintered parts patents
This dataset identifies 1,882 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine powder metallurgy or metal injection molding claims with process terms like green density, sintering shrinkage, debinding and porosity. The true figure is likely higher once the most recent 18 months of publication lag clear, since patent offices typically take that long to publish filed applications. Coverage here is scoped to IPC classes B22F, B22F1 and C22C33, so filings classified purely under end-use application codes may fall outside this count.
Filing activity peaked at 77 families in 2019, up from 48 in 2017, but had settled back to around 47 by the 2022 midpoint, and the trend since has been flat or declining rather than growing. The apparent drop in the final one or two years should be read cautiously because of publication lag, but the multi-year plateau before that is a genuine signal of a mature rather than expanding technology area. This pattern is typical of an established manufacturing process technology rather than an emerging one.
Historical activity in this dataset concentrates around steel and powder-metal specialists, including Japanese firms such as Kawasaki Steel, JFE Steel and JFE Precision, which also show the strongest co-filing relationship in the corpus at 12 joint filings. However, every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum shows zero filings in the latest year, meaning no single company currently dominates active filing. Reviewing full assignee rankings alongside filing recency is more informative than relying on historical leadership alone.
US20170080498A1, filed by True Velocity IP Holdings, describes a metal injection molding method for ammunition projectiles using a two-binder feedstock, mold shaping around a nose-shoulder-bearing-surface geometry, and a sequential debinding-then-sintering process. It is the second most-cited record in this corpus at 207 citations, indicating significant influence on later prior art in MIM-based projectile manufacturing specifically. Its claims are narrow to projectile geometry and the dual-binder debind sequence, so work outside ammunition applications, or using single-binder or alternative debind sequences, sits outside its direct scope, though a full claim chart is advisable before relying on that distinction.
Filing density is heavily concentrated in core process classes, with B22F alone covering 1,780 of 1,882 records, while adjacent branches such as additive manufacturing feedstock (66 records), magnetics (58), welding and brazing interfaces (52) and non-ferrous alloy treatment (45) remain comparatively thin. These lower-density branches represent areas where claim space is less occupied relative to the size of the core field, making them worth closer freedom-to-operate and prior-art review for new filings. Thin filing density is not proof the technology is unexplored, but it does mean fewer blocking claims currently exist there.
Research Powder Metallurgy Sintered Parts in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole powder metallurgy sintered parts 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.