Precise Electrochemical Machining Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- 21.9% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees hold 181 of 827 records in scope — a real lead, but nowhere near control of the field.
- Electroplating overlaps machining more than expected. C25D (electroforming) covers 29.0% of records versus 26.1% for B23H (electro/chemical machining proper), showing the two disciplines are filed as one claim space, not two.
- Filing has pulled back from its 2019 peak. Volume ran from 36 in 2021 to 26 in 2024, down 28% over that span — a real cooling after the 2019 high of 40, not a data artefact.
Filing growth compares 2021 (36 records) with 2024 (26) — 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 827 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Precise electrochemical machining spans two overlapping patent traditions: the classical ECM literature on interelectrode gap control, current density distribution and passivating electrolytes, and the electroplating and electroforming art that shares its electrolyte chemistry and tooling. The search string used here pulls both together, so a record about pulse ECM tool design sits in the same corpus as one about electroplating apparatus — which is exactly why C25D and B23H are the two largest classes rather than one dominating outright.
The 827 records in scope span 2015 through the middle of 2026, with United States, EPO and India as the largest receiving offices. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years understate real filing activity and should be read as provisional rather than a genuine slowdown.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 827-record corpus: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A 2019 peak followed by a real pullback
Filings rose from 24 in 2017 to a peak of 40 in 2019, then eased. The 2021-to-2024 window shows the clearest complete-year comparison: 36 down to 26, a 28% decline. Years after 2024 are still filling in under publication lag and should not be read as continuing that decline.
Electroforming and machining are filed together
C25D (electroplating and electroforming) leads at 29.0% of the 827 records, closely followed by B23H (electro/chemical machining) at 26.1%. Battery and cell claims (H01M, 14.8%) and electrolytic production classes (C25B, C25C) each clear 12%, showing this is as much an electrochemistry corpus as a machining one. Because records can carry several classes, these shares sum to well over 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 827 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Precise Electrochemical Machining with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about precise electrochemical machining and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records and a representative claim
US20120052325A1 — Method of electrochemical machining
Filed by PECM Industrial, this record describes high-precision dimensional ECM using current pulses synchronised with oscillation phases at the interelectrode-gap pressure maximum, with electrode approach speed set for a given pulse frequency and amplitude — a control-loop approach to gap management rather than a fixed-geometry tool.Abstract condensed from the original filing.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6261433B1 | Electro-chemical deposition system and method of electroplating on substrates | 418 |
| 2 | US6800187B1 | Clamshell apparatus for electrochemically treating wafers | 267 |
| 3 | US6103096A | Apparatus and method for the electrochemical etching of a wafer | 229 |
| 4 | US20100032310A1 | Method and apparatus for electroplating | 166 |
| 5 | US8308931B2 | Method and apparatus for electroplating | 142 |
| 6 | US20100044236A1 | Method and apparatus for electroplating | 116 |
| 7 | US20120052347A1 | Flow battery systems | 110 |
| 8 | US20120258408A1 | Electroplating apparatus for tailored uniformity profile | 97 |
| 9 | US4521497A | Electrochemical generators and method for the operation thereof | 97 |
| 10 | US6402931B1 | Electrochemical machining using modulated reverse electric fields | 94 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — read them as a signal of influence on the field, not of 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 data means for a filing decision
Three read-outs from the concentration, class and citation figures above, aimed at where to file and where not to.
A lead, not a lock
The top five assignees hold 21.9% of all 827 records and the top ten 35.2%. That leaves roughly two-thirds of the corpus outside the ranked leaders' hands — a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants rather than a field controlled by a handful of players.
Electroplating art anchors the machining claims
C25D and B23H together account for more than half the class tags on these 827 records. Anyone filing pure ECM claims is filing into the same examiner art unit as electroforming and electroplating apparatus work, so prior-art searches that stop at B23H will miss a large share of relevant disclosures.
A cooling after the 2019 peak
Volume peaked at 40 in 2019 and has since eased to 26 by 2024, a 28% drop across the last fully-comparable three-year window. That is a genuine pullback in filing pace, not a data cut-off artefact, since 2024 is the last year unaffected by publication lag.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to precise electrochemical machining, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and who has slowed
The ranked leaders sit across equipment makers, battery and energy-storage entrants, and legacy metals processors — but recent-year momentum is flat across the assignees this dataset can track most closely.
A single leader well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 45 of the 827 records, well clear of the fifth-place holder at 31 and tenth place at 17 — a genuine gap at the very top before the ranking flattens into a long tail.
Momentum has stalled among the names tracked
Several assignees with meaningful historical totals show zero filings in the latest tracked year, including one at -100% year-on-year. That is consistent with the field-wide pullback from the 2019 peak rather than any single company's exit.
US-centred, with a real EPO and India presence
The United States receives more than double the filings of the next office, EPO at 107, with India and WIPO both at 61. Canada and the UK round out the picture at 35 and 36 — a filing footprint concentrated in the US but genuinely multi-jurisdictional beyond it.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Olin Corp | 0 | — |
| Semsysco GmbH | 0 | — |
| General Electric Co | 0 | — |
| Form Energy Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Novellus Systems Inc | 0 | — |
| Agora Energy Technologies Ltd | 0 | — |
| Comalco Aluminum Ltd | 0 | — |
| Applied Materials Inc | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The figures above describe the shape of the field. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going deeper on specific claims and specific assignees.
Check claim scope on the leaders
The top-ranked assignee's 45 records are worth reading claim-by-claim before filing anything adjacent to electroforming or wafer-plating apparatus.
Explore assignee claims in Eureka →Map the under-claimed branches
Sludge handling, adaptive tool-path control and aerospace-grade passivating electrolytes all sit below the dominant class density — a first mover there faces a thinner prior-art field.
Run a white-space search in Eureka →Track momentum, not just totals
Several historically active assignees show zero filings in the latest tracked year; watching who resumes filing as the publication lag clears will signal where competitive attention is returning.
Set up assignee monitoring in Eureka →Common questions about this landscape
The leading assignee in this dataset holds 45 of the 827 records in scope, ahead of the fifth-ranked assignee at 31 and the tenth at 17. The top five assignees combined hold 21.9% of all 827 records, and the top ten hold 35.2%. That leaves the majority of the corpus spread across a long tail of smaller filers, so no single company controls the field outright.
Filing peaked in 2019 at 40 records and has since eased; the clearest complete-year comparison shows a drop from 36 filings in 2021 to 26 in 2024, a 28% decline. Years after 2024 will look artificially low because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so those figures are still filling in rather than showing a genuine further drop. Read the 2021-2024 trend as the real signal, not the raw tail end of the chart.
The two fields overlap heavily in the patent literature because they share electrolyte chemistry and tooling concepts. C25D, the electroplating and electroforming class, covers 29.0% of the 827 records, while B23H, electro/chemical machining proper, covers 26.1% — the two largest classes in the corpus. A search limited to only one of these classes will miss a substantial share of relevant prior art in the other.
Sub-areas below the dominant C25D and B23H claim density include sludge and swarf handling systems, adaptive tool-path iteration for irregular geometries, in-process current density feedback control, and passivating electrolyte formulations tuned for aerospace alloys. These sit outside the highest-density classes in this dataset, which suggests thinner prior art and more room for a first, tightly-drafted claim. A proper freedom-to-operate check is still the only way to confirm a branch is genuinely open.
US20120052325A1, assigned to PECM Industrial, claims a method of electrochemical machining in neutral electrolytes that synchronises current pulses with oscillation phases at the interelectrode-gap pressure maximum, with electrode approach speed set relative to pulse frequency and amplitude. It is a control-loop claim over gap and pulse timing rather than a fixed tool geometry, so it most directly constrains designs that rely on the same pulse-synchronisation approach to gap control. Designs using different gap-sensing or pulse-timing strategies sit outside its literal scope, though a full claim chart is needed before relying on that distinction.
Research Precise Electrochemical Machining in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole precise electrochemical machining 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.