Shape-Memory Alloy Scale-Up Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing is still accelerating, not plateauing. The midpoint year sits at zero while the peak year (4 filings) comes later in the window, so activity is still building rather than settling.
- Processing, not composition, dominates the claim map. C22F (non-ferrous treatment, 68 records) and B21C (extrusion & drawing, 32 records) outweigh raw alloy-composition filings, pointing to thermomechanical processing as the contested ground.
- Japan is the primary filing venue. 36 of the tracked records route through Japan's receiving office versus 21 for the US, a split worth checking before choosing where to file or watch.
A processing-heavy field with a short, dense citation core
Shape-memory alloy scale-up patents cluster around how nickel-titanium and related alloys are melted, drawn, and heat-treated into usable wire and tube stock, rather than around new base compositions. The IPC mix — C22F non-ferrous treatment leading at 68 records, C22C alloys at 43, and B21C extrusion and drawing at 32 — shows that vacuum melting control, wire-drawing schedules, and post-draw heat treatment carry more of the current claim activity than alloy chemistry itself. Smaller but present branches in A61F implants, A61L sterilisation and H01Q antennas signal that scale-up know-how is being pulled into downstream product claims rather than staying confined to metallurgy.
The most-cited records in this corpus date to the 1990s and early 2000s, and citation counts inside any searched set favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate references. Treat that citation core as a map of foundational technique, not as a signal of which claims are commercially live today. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent year of the trend understates real 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
82 patent families make up this landscape, spanning 2015 through the partial 2026 year. The pattern below is read from families rather than raw document counts, which keeps continuation and multi-jurisdiction filing from distorting the picture.
Filings are climbing off a flat base
Activity was at zero in 2017, rose to a peak of 4 in 2021, then eased back to zero at the 2022 midpoint before the trend keeps building toward the most recent partial year — consistent with a technology still in its early scale-up phase rather than one that has already consolidated.
Processing subclasses outweigh composition claims
C22F (non-ferrous metal treatment) appears in 68 records and C22C (alloys) in 43, but B21C (metal extrusion & drawing) at 32 records confirms that mechanical forming — not just heat treatment — is a live claim area. The smaller counts in A61F, A61L, B32B, H01Q and C21D mark where scale-up technique is spilling into adjacent applications.
Shares are the percentage of the 82 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Shape-Memory Alloy Scale-Up and Mass Production with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about shape-memory alloy scale-up and mass production and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe citation core that still shapes freedom-to-operate
US4894100A — Ti-Ni-V shape memory alloy
A shape memory alloy consisting, by atomic ratio, of V 0.25-2.0% and the balance of Ni and Ti, an atomic ratio of Ni and Ti being 0.96-1.06. The shape memory alloy has good workability and a reduced temperature difference between martensitic transition start and austenitic transition finish points. Depending on the Ni/Ti ratio, the martensitic transition start point sits above or below room temperature, and the alloy exhibits pseudo elasticity.Filed by Tokin Corporation, a company of Japan; granted 1990-01-16.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6258182B1 | Pseudoelastic beta titanium alloy and uses therefor | 131 |
| 2 | US5611874A | Clad shape memory alloy composite structure and method | 67 |
| 3 | US4894100A | Ti-Ni-V shape memory alloy | 63 |
| 4 | US4919177A | Method of treating Ti-Ni shape memory alloy | 50 |
| 5 | US5001446A | Shape memory alloy and electric path protective device utilizing the alloy | 42 |
| 6 | US6596102B2 | Shape memory alloy and method of treating the same | 40 |
| 7 | US20130166010A1 | Hybrid balloon-expandable/self-expanding prosthesis for deployment in a body vessel and method of making | 35 |
| 8 | US20020003014A1 | Shape memory alloy and method of treating the same | 33 |
| 9 | JP1986217564A | Wire drawing method for niti alloy | 30 |
| 10 | WO2006081011A2 | Nitinol alloy for with good mechanical stability and a good superelastic operating window | 26 |
Ranked by citation count within the searched corpus; older filings are structurally favoured, so read this as foundational influence rather than current commercial weight.
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 stand out once the trend, the IPC mix and the citation core are read together.
Growth is real but still small in absolute terms
The count never exceeds single digits per year across the window, with a peak of 4 in 2021 and a dip back to zero at the 2022 midpoint before renewed activity. That is a field still finding its filing rhythm, not one with an established annual cadence.
Processing claims outnumber composition claims
C22F and B21C together point to thermomechanical processing — melting, drawing, annealing — as the area with the densest prior art, while the underlying Ni-Ti-based compositions themselves see comparatively fewer dedicated filings.
Japan is the heavier filing venue
More than 40% of tracked records route through Japan's receiving office, ahead of the United States, EPO, China, WIPO and Australia. A defensive or freedom-to-operate search that skips Japanese filings risks missing the bulk of the corpus.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to shape-memory alloy scale-up and mass production, with the prior art for and against each one.
A dispersed field with almost no cross-assignee collaboration
Only two co-assignee pairs appear across the entire dataset, and recent-year momentum across the tracked assignees is flat at zero for the latest year — a sign that filings are driven by individual entities working largely alone rather than joint ventures or consortia.
Collaboration is nearly absent
With only two recorded co-assignee pairs in the entire corpus, most filings here are single-assignee efforts. That lowers the odds of finding a joint-venture partner already active in the space and raises the value of direct licensing conversations.
No single assignee is currently pulling ahead
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum shows zero filings in the latest year. Given the 18-month publication lag, this likely reflects reporting delay rather than a genuine stop in activity, but it also means no clear current leader has separated from the pack.
Filing strategy skews toward Japan and the US
The receiving-office split shows Japan and the United States as the two venues carrying the bulk of activity, with EPO, China, WIPO and Australia each in single digits. Watching Japanese-language filings closely is necessary to track this field in full.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Tuqi Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| SURFACE GENESIS | 0 | — |
| Fujikura Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Johnson Matthey Plc (UK) | 0 | — |
| Tokin Corporation | 0 | — |
| Bomei Lisheng Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Matsushita Electric Works, Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Nippon Seisen Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to open processing claims and a thin collaboration network. The next steps depend on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or new filing.
Map the processing claim boundaries
Pull the full text of the C22F and B21C records to see exactly which melting, drawing and annealing parameter ranges are already claimed before drafting new process claims.
Explore claims in EurekaTrack Japanese-language filings directly
With 36 of 82 records routed through Japan, a monitoring workflow that only watches US and EPO filings will miss the majority of new activity in this field.
Set up monitoring in EurekaTest white-space claims against the citation core
Before filing in an under-claimed branch like continuous tube-drawing, check candidate claims against the older, heavily-cited foundational patents to confirm they are not already covered indirectly.
Run a claim check in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
Yes, though the volume is modest in absolute terms. The tracked dataset shows filings rising from zero in 2017 to a peak of 4 families in 2021, dipping at the 2022 midpoint, and continuing into a partial 2026 year. Because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, the true level of recent activity is likely higher than the most recent year shows. The overall pattern is one of a field still building rather than one that has plateaued.
C22F (non-ferrous metal treatment) and B21C (metal extrusion and drawing) carry the bulk of the claim density, appearing in 68 and 32 of the 82 tracked records respectively, alongside C22C (alloys) at 43. That distribution means thermomechanical processing — melting control, wire drawing, heat treatment — is more heavily claimed than raw alloy composition. Smaller overlaps with A61F implants and H01Q antennas show scale-up techniques feeding into specific end products.
The corpus includes assignees from Japan, the UK and elsewhere, but co-assignee pairs are rare — only two are recorded across all 82 families — and every tracked assignee shows zero filings in the most recent year. That combination points to a fragmented field of largely independent filers rather than one with a clear consolidated leader. Recent-year figures should be read cautiously given typical publication lag.
Japan is the largest single receiving office in this dataset with 36 records, ahead of the United States at 21, EPO at 8, and China and WIPO at 5 each. A filing or monitoring strategy limited to the US and Europe would miss the majority of documented activity. Given the gap, Japanese-language patent literature deserves direct review rather than reliance on English-language abstracts alone.
US4894100A claims a Ti-Ni-V shape memory alloy with a specific vanadium atomic ratio range and Ni/Ti balance, designed to improve workability and control the temperature gap between martensitic and austenitic transitions. It is one of the more heavily cited records in this corpus, but high citation count reflects age and foundational influence within the searched set rather than current commercial dominance. Anyone designing a new Ni-Ti-based composition with a comparable transition-temperature control mechanism should review it directly rather than assume it is no longer relevant.
Research Shape-Memory Alloy Scale-Up and Mass Production in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole shape-memory alloy scale-up and mass 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.