SLS Feedstock Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing already peaked. 2017 recorded 41 filings, the high point of the window; by 2022 annual filings had fallen to 2, and the leading assignees show zero activity in the most recent year.
- Chemistry, not machine design, dominates the claim space. C08L polymer-composition claims (142 records) sit almost level with B29C shaping claims (143), showing the fight is over powder formulation as much as process.
- The oldest patents are still the most cited. The five most-cited records all date to the early-to-mid 2000s and centre on recyclable laser-sintering powder — recycling and reuse chemistry is the historical anchor of this field.
Filing growth compares 2021 (15 records) with 2024 (1) — 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 214 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent families filed between 2015 and 2026 that combine selective laser sintering (SLS) process language with feedstock-specific claims: polyamide powder formulation, powder flowability control, and reusable powder feedstock. The IPC scope centres on B29C64/153 (SLS shaping), B33Y70 (additive manufacturing materials) and C08L77 (polyamide compositions), which together isolate feedstock chemistry from broader 3D-printing hardware claims.
Coverage spans 214 published families across major receiving offices, with the United States, Europe and China accounting for the bulk of filings. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the tail end of the trend understates current activity; the flat-to-declining pattern through the middle of the window is the more reliable signal.
Filing trend and technology mix
Two views of the same 214-family dataset: how filing volume moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim weight.
Filings rose early, then flattened
Filings peaked at 41 in 2017 and had fallen to 2 by the 2022 midpoint, with the most recent year showing no new filings recorded — consistent with a technology area where core feedstock chemistry claims were staked out early and the pace of new filing has since cooled.
Polymer chemistry rivals process claims
B29C (shaping of plastics, 143 records) and C08L (polymer compositions, 142 records) are nearly tied, with B33Y (additive manufacturing, 113) close behind. C08K additives (72) and C08G condensation polymers (69) show the formulation side of the field is substantial rather than incidental to the process claims.
Shares are the percentage of the 214 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Selective Laser Sintering Feedstock Development with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about selective laser sintering feedstock development and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art
Powder of spherical crosslinkable polyamide particles for selective laser sintering
The present invention provides a powder of spherical particles of crosslinkable polyamide suitable for the technique of selective laser sintering (SLS), and also a process for the production of such a powder of spherical particles of crosslinkable polyamide. The present invention also provides the production of articles by SLS, followed by a crosslinking step, starting from said powder of spherical particles of crosslinkable polyamide.Filed by Setup Performance SAS, granted 2022 — illustrates the shift toward crosslinkable chemistry as a route to differentiate from the older recyclable-powder patents that dominate the citation table.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6930278B1 | Continuous calibration of a non-contact thermal sensor for laser sintering | 190 |
| 2 | US20040102539A1 | Laser sintering powder with improved recycling properties, process for its production, and use of the laser s… | 147 |
| 3 | US20040106691A1 | Laser sinter powder with metal soaps, process for its production, and moldings produced from this laser sinte… | 128 |
| 4 | US20040138363A1 | Laser-sintering powder containing titanium dioxide particles, process for its preparation, and moldings produ… | 112 |
| 5 | US20050027050A1 | Laser sinter powder with a metal salt and a fatty acid derivative, process for its production, and moldings p… | 108 |
| 6 | US20110052927A1 | Powder Compositions and Methods of Manufacturing Articles Therefrom | 95 |
| 7 | US7148286B2 | Laser-sintering powder containing titanium dioxide particles, process for its preparation, and moldings produ… | 90 |
| 8 | US20040180980A1 | Laser-sintering powder with PMMI, PMMA, and/or PMMI-PMMA copolymers, process for its preparation, and molding… | 84 |
| 9 | WO2009114715A2 | Powder compositions and methods of manufacturing articles therefrom | 68 |
| 10 | US7135525B2 | Laser-sintering powder with PMMI, PMMA, and/or PMMI-PMMA copolymers, process for its preparation, and molding… | 63 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations within this searched corpus; treat them as a marker of influence on the field's vocabulary, not as a ranking of current importance.
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 a filing decision
Three patterns in the dataset carry direct implications for anyone deciding where to file or where to license around.
The rush is over, at least on paper
2017's peak of 41 filings has not been matched since, and the leading assignees in this space each show zero filings in the most recent year. That does not mean the technology is dead — publication lag means the last 18 months are undercounted — but it does mean the wave of foundational filing has passed.
Process and chemistry claims are neck and neck
Shaping-process claims (B29C) and polymer-composition claims (C08L) are almost tied in record count, meaning a freedom-to-operate review for feedstock work cannot skip the chemistry side even if the invention is process-focused.
Filing is US-led but not US-only
The United States leads receiving-office counts, with Europe and China both carrying meaningful volume and Canada and Israel also represented. A single-jurisdiction clearance search would miss a third or more of the relevant prior art.
Co-filing is rare and concentrated
Only seven co-assignee pairs appear across 214 families, and the strongest is an internal pairing between a company and its own research institute rather than a cross-company alliance. Most feedstock IP here was developed and filed by single entities.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to selective laser sintering feedstock development, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where it's open
Recent-year momentum shows the named leaders in this dataset all recorded zero filings in the latest year, which is more informative about the field's pace than about any single company's retreat.
Established players have gone quiet
Every one of the assignees with the strongest historical presence in this corpus — spanning specialty chemicals, additive-manufacturing hardware and polymer producers — shows no filings in the most recent tracked year. Given publication lag, some of that is reporting delay rather than true inactivity.
A broad but shallow field
With 214 families spread across the ranking and only seven co-assignee pairs, the field reads as many single-assignee filings rather than a small number of dominant portfolios cross-licensed between a handful of firms.
Three-office coverage is the baseline
Any competitive assessment of feedstock IP needs to clear the United States, European and Chinese offices at minimum, with Canada and Israel as secondary checks given their double-digit filing counts.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Evonik Operations GmbH | 0 | — |
| BASF SE | 0 | — |
| Degussa AG | 0 | — |
| Hunan Farsoon High-Tech Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Xerox Corporation | 0 | — |
| Valspar Sourcing, Inc. | 0 | — |
| EMS-Chemie AG | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The trend and assignee data point to a field that rewards a narrower, chemistry-first search rather than a broad process-claim clearance.
Run a chemistry-specific FTO
Given the near-parity between B29C and C08L claim volume, a freedom-to-operate check limited to process claims will miss half the relevant art. Search the polymer-composition IPC classes with equal weight.
Explore feedstock claims in EurekaCheck for lagged recent filings
Zero filings in the latest year across leading assignees is likely a publication-lag artefact rather than true withdrawal from the space. Re-run the search in 12-18 months to see what has since published.
Set up a monitoring search in EurekaTarget the thin sub-areas directly
Flowability additives, feedstock aging control and crosslinkable particle chemistry show comparatively less direct claim density than the core recyclable-powder art. These are the areas where a well-drafted first claim has the most room.
Map white space in EurekaCommon questions on SLS feedstock patents
The most-cited records in this corpus, including US20040102539A1 and related filings on laser sinter powder with metal soaps or fatty acid derivatives, specifically address recyclability of unfused SLS powder. These early-2000s filings remain the most-cited documents in the dataset because they established the vocabulary and core chemistry — metal soap additives, fatty acid derivatives — that later filings build on or design around. Anyone developing a reusable-powder claim should review these first, since they anchor the prior art landscape for recycling-focused feedstock work.
The dataset's leading assignees span specialty chemical producers, additive-manufacturing hardware makers and polymer producers, reflecting that feedstock IP sits at the intersection of chemistry and 3D-printing process design. Notably, every one of the top-tracked assignees shows zero filings in the most recent year, which given the roughly 18-month publication lag likely understates current activity rather than indicating a genuine retreat from the field. A monitoring search re-run in a year or two would clarify whether filing has genuinely slowed or is simply pending publication.
Filing activity peaked at 41 records in 2017 and had dropped to 2 by 2022, a flat-to-declining pattern rather than a growth curve. That said, the most recent years in any patent dataset are always undercounted because of publication lag, so the true 2024-2026 filing rate cannot be read directly from this trend. The honest read is that the foundational chemistry claims were staked out earlier in the window, and new entrants now face a denser prior-art base than they would have in 2017.
Relative to the dense core of recyclable polyamide powder claims, sub-areas such as powder flowability additive packages, feedstock aging and degradation control, and crosslinkable polyamide particle chemistry show comparatively thinner direct claim coverage. These are not unclaimed areas outright, but they carry less concentrated prior art than the core recycling and metal-soap additive space that the most-cited patents occupy. A first claim drafted around a specific flowability mechanism or a novel crosslinking chemistry has more room to establish clean priority than one targeting core recyclability.
The United States leads with 49 records among the receiving offices tracked, followed by Europe at 37 and China at 29, with Canada and Israel each contributing double-digit counts. A clearance search limited to a single office would miss a substantial share of the relevant prior art, particularly given the European and Chinese volumes are not far behind the US figure. Filers pursuing global feedstock IP should budget for national-phase filing in at least these three jurisdictions rather than relying on PCT filings alone, since WIPO/PCT volume in this dataset is comparatively low at 11.
Research Selective Laser Sintering Feedstock Development in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole selective laser sintering feedstock development 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.