Sand Casting Mold Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- One assignee alone accounts for 21 of the 77 records in scope, and the top 5 combined hold 55.8% of all filings — this field is concentrated, not fragmented.
- Filing peaked in 2017 at 13 records and has fallen since, with 2026 showing only 2 (partial year) — a maturing claim landscape, not a growing one.
- Every record in scope sits in B22C foundry moulding by definition, but the real differentiation is in the secondary classes: C08G binder chemistry reaches only 16.9% of records.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent activity at the intersection of sand casting process technology and mold/core materials — binder systems, gas-defect control, sand collapsibility, reclamation, and additive (3D-printed) sand mold methods. The scope is defined by a search across titles and claims for these terms, combined with an IPC filter on B22C1, B22C9 and B22C15 — the foundry-moulding subclasses that cover mold and core making, mold and core compositions, and their treatment or reclamation.
The dataset spans publications from 2015 through the mid-2026 cut-off, with 77 records in scope. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend chart will understate actual filing activity.
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 77 records: how filing has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend: a 2017 peak, then a decline
Filings ran at 13 records in 2017, the peak so far, and have trended down through the dataset toward 2 in 2026 (a partial year). Read the tail end cautiously: publication lag means recent filings are still arriving.
IPC composition: concentrated in foundry moulding, thin elsewhere
Every record carries B22C by construction of the search. Beyond that, C08G (condensation polymers, 16.9% of records) and B22D (metal casting, 15.6%) are the largest secondary classes — everything past those, including C08F addition polymers at 5.2%, is thinly claimed.
Shares are the percentage of the 77 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Sand Casting and Mold Technology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about sand casting and mold technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records
US20180065170A1 — Three component polyurethane binder system
An organic binder system is mixed with molding material for sand casting in the metals industry. The organic binder system has three parts, the first two of which are conventional and are used in the cold box or no bake process. The third part, which is combined with the first two parts at the time of use, contains at least an alkyl silicate and, optionally, a bipodal aminosilane. In some embodiments, an amount of hydrofluoric acid is included in one or both of the first two parts. Use of the organic binder system provides improved tensile strength in the mold, especially in high relative humidity.Filed by ASK Chemicals LLC, published 2018-03-08 — a three-part cold-box/no-bake binder claim built around a late-added alkyl silicate component.
View full filing| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4352390A | Precision silica cones for sand casting of steel and iron alloys | 48 |
| 2 | US4236568A | Method of casting steel and iron alloys with precision cristobalite cores | 27 |
| 3 | US20030155098A1 | Sand casting foundry composition and method using thermally collapsible clay minerals as an anti-veining agent | 23 |
| 4 | US6719835B2 | Sand casting foundry composition and method using shale as anti-veining agent | 23 |
| 5 | US20110220316A1 | Non-veining urethane resins for foundry sand casting | 21 |
| 6 | US20030101907A1 | Sand casting foundry composition and method using shale as an anti-veining agent | 18 |
| 7 | US3816145A | Trihydroxydiphenyl as an additive for foundry green molding sands | 12 |
| 8 | EP2921243A1 | Sand for casting mold, manufacturing method for sand casting-mold, and core for metal casting | 10 |
| 9 | JP1986046350A | Production of casting mold | 10 |
| 10 | CN102357647A | 铸造用环保镁质砂及其制备工艺 | 9 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — treat them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not of current commercial relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 say about this field
Reading concentration, citation and geography together points to where the field is settled and where it is still contestable.
Filing is concentrated at the top
The top 5 assignees combined account for 55.8% of all 77 records in scope, and the top 10 reach 75.3%. A single leader holds 21 records outright. New entrants are filing into a field where the core binder-system and mold-composition claims are already occupied by a small group.
Filing has slowed since a 2017 peak
The filing trend peaked at 13 records in 2017 and has declined since, with only 2 records so far in 2026. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the last year or two of any count is understated — but the multi-year decline through the dataset's midpoint is real.
The oldest claims still anchor the field
The most-cited record in scope, on precision silica cones for sand casting of steel and iron alloys, carries 48 citations — well ahead of the rest of the table. High citation counts in a searched corpus favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate references, so treat this as a map of influence, not of current activity.
Filing offices split across three regions
China (18) and the United States (14) lead the receiving offices, with Europe (10), India (8), Canada (6) and Japan (6) trailing. That spread suggests protection strategies here are regionally deliberate rather than defaulting to a single home jurisdiction.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to sand casting and mold technology, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where it is still open
The ranked leaders hold the binder-chemistry and precision-core claims; the sub-areas below them show far less filing density.
One assignee sets the pace
The top-ranked assignee holds 21 of the 77 records in scope — roughly a quarter of the field on its own. That scale typically reflects a sustained binder-chemistry or core-making program rather than a single opportunistic filing burst.
A long tail below the top 10
Beyond the top 10, which together hold 75.3% of the 77 records, the ranking extends to 56 companies total, many with only one or two filings. That pattern is typical of a field where a handful of incumbents set the technical baseline and everyone else files narrowly around a specific process tweak.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated
Only 6 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pair — a foundry-equipment maker and an automaker — accounts for 8 joint filings. That is a supplier-OEM pattern: equipment and materials specialists filing alongside the manufacturer using their process.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| ASK Chemicals LLC | 0 | — |
| Sintokogio, Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Toyota Motor Corporation | 0 | — |
| Jidosha Chuki Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| AMCOL International Corp. | 0 | — |
| Tokyo Ohka Kogyo Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Lifoam Industries, LLC | 0 | — |
| SHERWOOD REFRACTORIES | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The dataset points to a field with settled leaders and a narrowing filing rate — the open questions are about where the remaining claim space sits.
Map the white space before drafting
Secondary IPC classes like C08F and B28B show low record share against the full 77-record base, which is a starting point for scoping a first claim rather than a conclusion on its own.
Explore white space in EurekaCheck freedom-to-operate against the top holders
With 55.8% of records held by five assignees, any new binder-system or core-composition filing should be checked against their existing claims before drafting.
Run an FTO check in EurekaCommon questions about sand casting patent activity
The dataset's assignee ranking is led by a single company holding 21 of the 77 records in scope, with the top 5 assignees combined accounting for 55.8% of all records. This is a concentrated field: the leading holders cover binder chemistry, precision core making, and mold composition claims that a new entrant will likely have to file around. The ranking extends to 56 companies in total, so beyond the top tier there is a long list of single- or double-filing entrants.
Filing peaked at 13 records in 2017 and has declined since, with only 2 records recorded so far in 2026. Because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years understate real activity, but the multi-year decline visible through the dataset's midpoint reflects a genuine slowdown rather than a data artifact. This pattern is consistent with a field where core process and binder claims are already well established.
The highest-citation record in this corpus covers precision silica cones for sand casting of steel and iron alloys, with 48 citations, ahead of a related precision cristobalite core patent at 27. Two other frequently cited filings cover anti-veining agents for sand casting compositions, each with 23 citations. High citation counts in a searched corpus tend to favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references, so these numbers reflect influence within the field rather than current commercial weight.
US20180065170A1, assigned to ASK Chemicals LLC and published in 2018, claims a three-component polyurethane binder system for sand casting: two conventional cold-box/no-bake parts plus a third part containing at least an alkyl silicate, optionally combined with a bipodal aminosilane and in some embodiments hydrofluoric acid. It targets improved tensile strength in high-humidity conditions. Anyone developing a similar third-component additive to a cold-box or no-bake binder system should check this filing's specific claim language around the alkyl silicate and aminosilane combination before proceeding, since that is the narrow technical feature it protects rather than cold-box binders generally.
The secondary IPC classes carry much lower record share than the core B22C foundry-moulding class that defines the search: C08G binder-polymer chemistry reaches 16.9% of the 77 records, B22D metal casting 15.6%, and C08F addition-polymer chemistry only 5.2%. Those lower-density classes, along with 3D-printed sand mold methods and sand reclamation process control mentioned in the search scope, are areas where fewer of the 77 records stake a claim. That does not guarantee an open field, but it is a reasonable starting point for a novelty search ahead of drafting.
Research Sand Casting and Mold Technology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole sand casting and mold technology 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.