Pultrusion Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing activity has cooled from its 2017 peak of 62 records, and the 2021→2024 span shows a -45% drop (22 to 12), a real decline once the 18-month publication lag is accounted for.
- The field is not dominated by a single player; the leader holds 51 records but the top 5 combined account for only 19.7% of all 1,043 records in scope, and the top 10 just 32.5%.
- Shaping and processing classes dwarf composition claims; B29C shaping appears in 52.4% of records while additive-use class C08K sits at just 10.4%, a gap worth checking before filing.
Filing growth compares 2021 (22 records) with 2024 (12) — 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 1,043 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this patent landscape covers
Pultrusion pulls continuous fibre reinforcement through a resin bath or injection box and then a heated die to form constant-cross-section profiles at a set line speed. This landscape tracks patents referencing the process mechanics — die temperature zones, pull force, resin injection boxes, surface veils and profile straightness — rather than composite materials generally, so the scope is deliberately narrower than “composites” as a whole.
The 1,043 records in scope span 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, drawing receiving-office activity concentrated in the United States, Europe and the WIPO PCT track, with meaningful filing in Canada, Austria and Australia.
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 1,043 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
A 2017 peak followed by a real pullback
Filings peaked at 62 in 2017. The comparable, publication-lag-adjusted window shows 22 records in 2021 falling to 12 in 2024 — a 45% decline over that three-year span. Years after 2024 will keep rising in the chart as publications catch up, so treat the tail as incomplete rather than as a continuation of the drop.
Shaping and processing dominate over composition
B29C (shaping of plastics) appears in 52.4% of the 1,043 records, more than any other subclass, followed by C08J polymer processing at 26.9% and B29B plastics preparation at 17.6%. Additive and compositional classes such as C08L, C08G and C08K each sit under 13%, indicating that process and tooling claims outnumber formulation claims in this corpus.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,043 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Pultrusion and Continuous Profile Production with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about pultrusion and continuous profile production and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
US8747098B1 — Thermoplastic pultrusion die system and method
A thermoplastic pultrusion die system built from two curved die members — one with a concave top surface, one with a convex bottom surface — that form an adjustable curved die cavity gap, paired with a gripper mechanism for pulling the profile through.Assignee: Ebert Composites Corporation · Published 2014-06-10
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2009080281A1 | Process for producing long glass fibre-reinforced thermoplastic compositions | 200 |
| 2 | US5585155A | Fiber reinforced thermoplastic structural member | 192 |
| 3 | US4559262A | Fibre reinforced compositions and methods for producing such compositions | 185 |
| 4 | US4549920A | Method for impregnating filaments with thermoplastic | 168 |
| 5 | US5294461A | Pultrusion process for preparing composites | 156 |
| 6 | US4541884A | Method of producing fibre-reinforced composition | 153 |
| 7 | EP0056703A1 | Fibre-reinforced compositions and methods for producing such compositions | 145 |
| 8 | US6106944A | Fiber thermoset reinforced thermoplastic structural member | 139 |
| 9 | US9764520B2 | 3D thermoplastic composite pultrusion system and method | 118 |
| 10 | US6007656A | Fiber reinforced thermoplastic structural member | 117 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations within this corpus — 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 numbers mean for filing strategy
Three signals stand out once the raw counts are set against their proper denominators.
No single owner controls the field
The leading assignee holds 51 records, but the next four combined bring the top 5 to only 19.7% of all 1,043 records in scope. A ranked list of 100 companies shares the remaining claim space, which points to a fragmented ownership structure rather than a gatekeeper.
A real cooling, not a data artefact
Filings fell from 22 in 2021 to 12 in 2024, a decline the dataset states directly and that predates the publication-lag window, so it reflects an actual drop in filing activity rather than incomplete recent data.
Process claims outweigh formulation claims
B29C shaping-of-plastics claims cover 52.4% of records while additive-use class C08K covers just 10.4%. That gap suggests die, pull-force and line-speed mechanics are heavily claimed while additive and surface-treatment formulations are comparatively open.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to pultrusion and continuous profile production, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where it opens up
The ranking spans 100 companies with no dominant gatekeeper, and recent-year activity has slowed across the most active names.
A lead without control
The top assignee's 51 records make it the single largest holder, but that is a modest share of 1,043 records overall, leaving substantial room for new entrants to build a position without displacing an incumbent.
A shallow drop-off after the leader
Fifth place holds 30 records and tenth place 25, a gentle slope rather than a cliff — evidence of several established filers rather than one dominant player and a crowd of one-off filers.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet at the top
The most active historical filers show no filings in the latest year, consistent with the broader -45% trend from 2021 to 2024. This does not necessarily mean exit from the space — publication lag means the newest activity is still arriving.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Ticona LLC | 0 | — |
| SABIC Global Technologies B.V. | 0 | -100% |
| Covestro LLC | 0 | — |
| Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd | 0 | — |
| Ebert Composites Corporation | 0 | — |
| Huntsman International LLC | 0 | — |
| Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation | 0 | — |
| ROLAN INVESTMENT OU | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, sourcing, or identifying a filing gap.
Map claims against the shaping-class core
With B29C covering 52.4% of records, a freedom-to-operate check should start there before assuming the additive or formulation classes are the constraint.
Explore claim clusters in Patsnap EurekaTrack the fragmented ownership structure
With the top 5 assignees holding only 19.7% of records, monitoring the full ranked list matters more here than in fields with a dominant leader.
Build an assignee watchlist in Patsnap EurekaRevisit the trend once 2025–2026 data settles
Recent years understate true filing activity because of publication lag; a re-check in a year will show whether the -45% decline continued or reversed.
Set a monitoring alert in Patsnap EurekaCommon questions about pultrusion patents
The dataset's assignee ranking covers 100 companies, with the leader holding 51 of the 1,043 records in scope. Ownership is fragmented rather than concentrated: the top 5 assignees combined account for only 19.7% of all records, and the top 10 for 32.5%. This means no single company controls the core claim space, and a competitive review needs to look well beyond the top few names to get a full picture.
Filing peaked in 2017 at 62 records and has since declined; the comparable 2021-to-2024 window shows a drop from 22 to 12 filings, a -45% change. Because patent publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any chart will look artificially low and should not be read as confirming the decline further. Based on the complete years available, the trend is a genuine cooling rather than a data artefact.
Shaping-of-plastics claims under IPC class B29C appear in 52.4% of the 1,043 records, making it by far the most heavily claimed area, followed by polymer processing (C08J, 26.9%) and plastics preparation (B29B, 17.6%). Compositional classes covering additives, condensation polymers and polymer compositions each sit below 13% of records. This indicates that die design, pull mechanics and processing steps are more densely claimed than resin formulation or additive chemistry.
Relative to the dominant shaping and processing classes, additive-use claims (C08K, 10.4% of records) and several process sub-areas such as surface veil integration, in-line straightness control and resin injection metering carry thinner claim density. These are not empty, but they sit well below the 50%+ density seen in core shaping claims, making them reasonable areas to investigate for a differentiated filing rather than competing directly in the most crowded die-mechanics space.
US8747098B1, assigned to Ebert Composites Corporation and published in 2014, claims a thermoplastic pultrusion die system built around two curved die members forming an adjustable die cavity gap, combined with a gripper mechanism for pulling the profile through. Anyone designing a curved-cavity, gap-adjustable die for thermoplastic pultrusion should review this claim set closely, since it covers a specific mechanical configuration rather than pultrusion generally. Alternative geometries, such as fixed-gap or straight-cavity dies, sit outside its literal scope and are a starting point for a design-around.
Research Pultrusion and Continuous Profile Production in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole pultrusion and continuous profile production 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.