RFID Packaging Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
A patent landscape analysis of RFID packaging technology covering 232 records from 2015 to 2026, mapping leading assignees, filing trends, IPC composition and the most-cited patents shaping the field.
Filing growth = 2021 (12 records) → 2024 (6); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 232 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What the RFID packaging patent record shows
RFID packaging sits at the intersection of physical packaging engineering and data-carrying electronics, which is why the dataset spans both B65D/B65B container and wrapping classes and G06K/G06Q data-recognition and commerce classes. The 232 records in scope, filtered to the intersection of RFID packaging terminology and packaging IPC codes, run from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with the most recent years understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. Filing activity peaked in 2017 and has since pulled back, though the field has not gone quiet: receiving offices spread across the United States, WIPO, Europe, Australia, Canada and India show this is being filed as an international problem rather than a single-jurisdiction one.
The composition of IPC classes is the clearest signal in this dataset: packaging structure classes dominate, while classes tied to computation and business-process logic are present but comparatively thin. That gap is where a first claim is more likely to find open ground, though it also means the physical packaging side of the problem is well covered by prior art.
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
The two views below cover the same 232 records from different angles: one tracks when filings were made, the other shows which IPC subclasses those filings sit in, with a record able to carry more than one class.
Filing trend, 2015–2026
Filings peaked in 2017 at 24 records. The tracked 2021-to-2024 window fell from 12 to 6 records, a 50% decline; treat 2025 and 2026 as still filling in given typical publication lag, not as evidence of a continued drop.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
IPC subclass composition
B65D (containers & packaging) covers 72.0% of the 232 records and B65B (packaging & wrapping) covers 34.1%, confirming this is filed primarily as a packaging-structure problem. Data and commerce classes — G06K at 30.2%, G06Q at 14.2%, G06F at 7.8% — are present but sit well below the packaging classes, and material-handling adjacent classes (B07C, B41J, B65G) each sit at 5.2%.
Shares are the percentage of the 232 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on RFID Packaging Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about rfid packaging patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
US12049338B2 — Method for a packaging material (Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance, 2024-07-30)
A method for providing a packaging material is provided. The method comprises feeding a web of packaging material through a packaging material processing unit; determining a target position of the packaging material; and controlling a printing unit to print an RFID antenna at the target position, wherein the material used for printing the RFID antenna is conductive substance. A packaging material is also provided.Filed by Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance and granted in 2024, this record sits at the leading edge of the dataset and claims an in-line, print-based method for placing an RFID antenna directly onto a packaging web rather than attaching a separately manufactured tag or inlay.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6557758B1 | Direct to package printing system with RFID write/read capability | 271 |
| 2 | US20050162277A1 | Secure product packaging system | 138 |
| 3 | WO2008000279A1 | Blister package integrating RFID based tags | 97 |
| 4 | US7034689B2 | Secure product packaging system | 97 |
| 5 | US20100320189A1 | Automated user-customized cooking appliance configuration | 94 |
| 6 | US20010054755A1 | Integrated package and RFID antenna | 88 |
| 7 | US20080149584A1 | Secure product packaging | 83 |
| 8 | US7748610B2 | Packaging device and container for sheet objects | 77 |
| 9 | US7712288B2 | Unified ingestion package and process for patient compliance with prescribed medication regimen | 72 |
| 10 | US20180189623A1 | RFID tags with shielding structure for incorporation into microwavable food packaging | 68 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings; use them as a signal of what other applicants had to design around, not as a measure 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
Four figures from this dataset carry direct implications for where a new filing is likely to land clean and where it will collide with dense prior art.
The top of the field is concentrated but not locked
The leading assignee holds 18 records and the top five combined account for 28.9% of all 232 records in scope. That leaves the majority of filings spread across a long tail, so freedom-to-operate analysis needs to look well past the leaderboard.
Activity has cooled from its 2017 peak
Filings peaked at 24 records in 2017 and the tracked 2021-to-2024 window shows a 50% decline from 12 to 6 records. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are not yet reliable evidence of a continued slowdown.
Packaging structure claims dominate the class mix
B65D accounts for 72.0% of the 232 records and B65B for 34.1%, while data-processing classes like G06F sit at only 7.8%. Claim space around the physical packaging structure is the most crowded; the computational side of RFID packaging has more open ground.
Filing is international but US-anchored
The United States leads with 67 filings, followed by WIPO (PCT) at 42 and the EPO at 38, with Australia, Canada and India each in double digits. That spread indicates applicants are pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than treating this as a domestic-only technology.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to rfid packaging patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy, or identifying a filing opportunity.
Map claim overlap against the leading assignees
With the top five assignees holding 28.9% of all 232 records, a claims-level comparison against those portfolios is the fastest way to see whether a planned filing crosses into occupied ground.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaProbe the under-claimed computational classes
G06F and G06Q sit well below the packaging classes in share of records, suggesting the data-processing side of RFID packaging — rather than the physical structure side — is where a first claim is more likely to stand clean.
Run a white-space search in EurekaTrack the post-2024 filing signal as it fills in
The 2021-to-2024 window shows a real decline, but 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete due to publication lag; revisit the trend once those years mature before drawing conclusions about direction.
Set a filing alert in EurekaFrequently asked questions
This dataset identifies 232 published patent records in scope, filtered to filings that combine RFID packaging terminology with the B65D and B65B packaging IPC classes, covering 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off. That figure counts published records rather than granted patents, and it is a filtered subset defined by a specific search string rather than every RFID-adjacent packaging filing worldwide. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true count for the most recent one to two years will rise as those filings publish.
The ranking covers 100 companies, counted by patent records, with the leading assignee holding 18 records and the field concentrating quickly after that — the top five assignees together account for 28.9% of all 232 records, and the top ten account for 42.2%. Beyond that point, filings spread thinly across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants, so no one company dominates the space outright. A freedom-to-operate review should look at both the leaders and the tail, since the tail still represents the majority of filings.
Filing peaked in 2017 at 24 records and has since declined; the tracked 2021-to-2024 window shows a 50% drop, from 12 records down to 6. That is a real, documented decline over a three-year span with a complete data window. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so it would be premature to read the very latest years as continuing that slowdown.
US12049338B2, held by Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance and granted in 2024, claims a method of printing an RFID antenna directly onto a packaging web using a conductive material during in-line processing, rather than applying a separately manufactured tag or inlay. Anyone designing an in-line, print-based antenna deposition process for packaging webs needs to check their process steps against this claim scope specifically. It does not block approaches that attach pre-made RFID inlays or tags to finished packaging, since that is a materially different manufacturing method.
IPC class composition shows packaging-structure classes are heavily filed — B65D at 72.0% of the 232 records and B65B at 34.1% — while classes tied to computation and business logic are comparatively thin, with G06F at only 7.8% and G06Q at 14.2%. That gap suggests the physical packaging side of RFID integration is well covered by prior art, while software, data-processing and commerce-logic aspects of RFID packaging have more open claim space. Any first-filing strategy should weight toward those thinner classes rather than re-covering packaging structure.
Research RFID Packaging Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole rfid packaging patent landscape 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.