Book a demo

Shape Memory Polymer Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026

Shape Memory Polymer Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/shape-memory-polymers-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Functional Materials
Shape Memory Polymer Patents: Who Holds the Core Claims
  • Filing has plateaued, not grown. the field peaked at 14 records in 2024 after a flat 2017-2022 stretch, with no leader adding filings in the latest year.
  • The top 5 hold under a third. 48 of 157 records (30.6%) sit with the five leading assignees — concentrated enough to matter, but far from a monopoly.
  • 3D printing is now central, not peripheral. 63 of 157 records (40.1%) carry an additive-manufacturing IPC class, alongside the 64.3% share still classified under core polymer compositions.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
157
Published Records
31%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+75%
3-Yr Growth (lag-adjusted)
CN
Leading Jurisdiction
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What the shape memory polymer patent record shows

Shape memory polymers occupy a narrow but persistent corner of materials patenting: 157 records published between 2015 and the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, spanning polymer chemistry, additive manufacturing and shaping processes. The search combines composition claims with functional language — recovery ratio, transition temperature, cyclic reliability, actuation stress — so the corpus captures both the base chemistry and the applied engineering built on top of it. Foundational patents from the early 2000s still carry the highest citation counts, a sign that the field’s chemistry basics were staked out well before the current filing window opened.

Filing activity has not grown over the coverage period: 2017 opened at 10 records and 2026 (partial) sits at 1, with a peak of 14 in 2024 and a flat midpoint of 11 in 2022. Because publication lags filing by roughly eighteen months, the most recent one or two years will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be, but the trend across the full window is level rather than rising.

Filing activity, 2017-2026
  1. 1MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH13
  2. 2MINEMOSCIENCE GMBH12
  3. 3NANYANG TECH UNIV8
  4. 4HARBIN INST OF TECH8
  5. 53M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES CO7
  6. 6CORNELL UNIVERSITY7
  7. 7HELMHOLTZ ZENT GEESTHACHT ZENT FUER MATERIAL UND KUESTENFORSCHUNG6
  8. 8BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIV & AGRI & MECHANICAL COLLEGE6
  9. 9GKSS FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM GEESTHACHT GMBH6
  10. 10CALIFORNIA INST OF TECH5
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape Memory Polymers covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
The Numbers

Filing trends and technology composition

Two views of the same 157-record corpus: filing activity by year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, the subclass shares below add up to well over 100% of the record total.

A decade of flat-to-declining filing

Filing opened at 10 records in 2017, climbed to a peak of 14 in 2024, and sat at a midpoint of 11 in 2022 — a pattern that reads as flat rather than growing once the understated final year or two is discounted for publication lag.

A decade of flat-to-declining filing0481115102017201820192020202120222023142024202512026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Polymer chemistry still anchors the field, additive manufacturing has caught up

C08L (polymer compositions) appears in 64.3% of the 157 records, the largest single class. B33Y (additive manufacturing) follows at 40.1%, ahead of B29C shaping processes at 35.7% — evidence that 4D-printing applications have moved from a niche use case to a mainstream filing target within this technology.

Polymer chemistry still anchors the field, additive manufacturing has caught upC08L · Polymer compositions10164.3%B33Y · Additive manufacturing (3D pri…6340.1%B29C · Shaping of plastics5635.7%C08G · Condensation polymers5333.8%C08F · Addition polymers (vinyl etc.)5233.1%A61L · Sterilising & disinfecting4428.0%C08J · Polymer processing & solutions4126.1%C08K · Use of additives in polymers3824.2%Other14793.6%

Shares are the percentage of the 157 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape Memory Polymers covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Shape Memory Polymers with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about shape memory polymers and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key Patents

The foundational filings still shaping freedom to operate

Representative Filing
WO2023137101A12023-07-20

Ultrasound responsive shape memory polymer composites (WO2023137101A1)

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

The filing claims a composite built from a shape memory polymer plus an additive that raises the material's ultrasound-absorption characteristics relative to the same polymer without that additive. The composite is defined by its own transition temperature and undergoes a shape change from a temporary to a permanent form on heating.Filed by California Institute of Technology, published 2023-07-20.

WO2023137101A1 — patent drawing 1WO2023137101A1 — patent drawing 2
View full filing
Most-cited records in the corpus
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US6388043B1Shape memory polymers1,117
2US6160084ABiodegradable shape memory polymers914
3US6720402B2Shape memory polymers676
4WO1999042147A1Biodegradable shape memory polymers259
5WO1999042528A2Shape memory polymers169
6US20030055198A1Shape memory polymers139
7US20170360534A1Three-dimensional fabricating material systems and methods for producing layered dental products88
8EP2075279A1Production of shape memory polymer articles by molding processes40
9US20120213969A1Functionally Graded Shape Memory Polymer29
10WO2006071520A2Shape memory polymer orthodontic appliances, and methods of making and using the same25

Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations inside this searched corpus — read them as a signal of foundational influence, not of current commercial weight.

Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape Memory Polymers covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis

 
Where to run it
Fastest

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 →
For builders

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 →
Insights

What the data means for filing strategy

Three patterns stand out once concentration, technology composition and citation age are read together.

Concentration
30.6%
of 157 records held by the top 5

Leadership is real but not exclusionary

The leading assignee holds 13 records and the fifth-ranked holds 7, giving the top five a combined 30.6% share of all 157 records in scope. That leaves a majority of the field spread across 86 ranked companies, many with only one or two filings.

A moderate lead, not a lockout.
Momentum
14 in 2024
peak year, then declining

The field has stopped accelerating

Filing peaked at 14 records in 2024 after sitting at a flat 11 in the 2022 midpoint, and none of the six most-active named assignees added a filing in the latest year. That pattern points to a maturing claim space rather than an emerging one.

Publication lag understates the final year, but not the decade-long trend.
Technology mix
40.1%
of records carry a B33Y (3D printing) class

4D printing has become a mainstream filing target

Additive manufacturing classes now appear alongside core polymer composition claims in a large share of the corpus, and shaping-process claims under B29C sit close behind at 35.7%. Composition chemistry (C08L, C08G, C08F) still anchors most filings, but the applied processing side has caught up.

Process claims are increasingly filed alongside, not instead of, composition claims.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to shape memory polymers, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape Memory Polymers covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players

Who is filing, and where the collaboration sits

The ranked field runs to 86 companies, with the top ten collectively holding 78 of 157 records (49.7%). Co-filing pairs are sparse — only 10 identified across the corpus — and cluster around a small number of university-industry or lab-inventor relationships rather than broad industry consortia.

Leader
13 records
held by the top-ranked assignee

A university-anchored leadership tier

The leading position and much of the top ten skew toward research universities and national laboratories rather than product manufacturers, consistent with a field where foundational chemistry patents still draw the heaviest citations.

Institutional filers dominate the top of the ranking.
Long tail
86 companies
in the full ranked field

Fragmented below the leaders

Beyond the top ten's 49.7% combined share, filings spread thinly across dozens of assignees, many holding a single record. That leaves room for a new entrant to establish a defensible position in an adjacent application rather than contest the core chemistry.

Single-filing entrants make up most of the ranking.
Collaboration
10 pairs
co-assignee relationships identified

Collaboration is narrow and specific

The strongest co-filing relationship links an inventor to a corporate assignee at 5 shared records; the next strongest pairs, at 3 shared records each, connect a university with a national research agency and two US federal-affiliated entities. There is no broad multi-party consortium pattern here.

Partnerships are bilateral, not networked.
🔍
Under-claimed branches worth a closer look
These sub-areas show lighter filing density relative to the core composition and 4D-printing claims, based on the IPC composition and momentum data above.
Cyclic reliability under repeated actuationUltrasound- or field-triggered composite transitionsSterilisable SMP for implantable devicesMulti-material 4D-printed shaping processesLow actuation-stress formulations
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Memory Sciences, Inc.0
Massachusetts Institute of Technology0
Harbin Institute of Technology0
Nanyang Technological University0
3M Innovative Properties Company0
Cornell University0
GKSS-Forschungszentrum Geesthacht GmbH0
University of Connecticut0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape Memory Polymers covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next

Where to take this analysis

The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or identifying a filing gap.

Check citation exposure before filing

The five most-cited records in this corpus date from the early 2000s and still anchor much of the field's foundational chemistry. Any new composition claim should be checked against these before drafting.

Run a citation check in Eureka

Map the under-claimed branches

Additive-manufacturing and sterilisation-adjacent classes show lighter density than core composition claims. A targeted search across these branches can surface a clearer first-claim position.

Explore white space in Eureka

Track the flat filing trend by assignee

None of the most active named assignees added a filing in the latest year. Watching whether that changes over the next publication cycle indicates whether the field is entering a new filing wave or continuing to plateau.

Set up assignee monitoring in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape Memory Polymers covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on the shape memory polymer patent landscape

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape Memory Polymers covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Shape Memory Polymers in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole shape memory polymers corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.