Silicone Elastomer 3D Printing Patents: Who Leads, Trends 2026
- Filing peaked in 2018 at 11 families and has not returned to that level since, with the 2022 midpoint down to just 2 — a pattern consistent with early claim-staking rather than sustained build-out.
- B29C shaping and B33Y additive processes dominate at 30 and 24 records respectively, while medical-facing A61F implant claims sit at only 8 — a much smaller, more specific pocket.
- The United States receives the most filings at 17, more than double the EPO's 10, with WIPO PCT filings at 7 suggesting most applicants have not yet pursued broad multi-jurisdiction protection.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent families combining silicone elastomer or polysiloxane chemistry with additive fabrication methods — direct ink writing, silicone 3D printing, and related layer-built processes. The dataset spans 42 published patent families filed between 2015 and 2026, covering shaping processes, ink and coating formulations, polymer compositions, and downstream applications such as implants and prostheses.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, activity in the most recent year is understated and should not be read as a drop-off on its own. The trend line below is more informative for years before the most recent one or two.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
The two views below show when filings happened and which parts of the technology stack they cluster in, using IPC subclass as the proxy for functional focus.
A front-loaded filing curve
Filings rose to a peak of 11 in 2018, then fell back sharply; by the 2022 midpoint only 2 families were filed, and the curve has stayed flat or declining since. This is the signature of a field where early entrants staked out core process claims and few new applicants have followed with distinct approaches.
Shaping and additive process claims dominate
B29C (shaping of plastics) leads at 30 records and B33Y (additive manufacturing) follows at 24, confirming that most filings are process-centric rather than material-centric. C09D coatings/inks (17) and C08L polymer compositions (12) form a secondary formulation layer, while A61F implants (8) and B29L plastic products (5) mark narrower application-specific pockets.
Shares are the percentage of the 42 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Silicone Elastomer Additive Manufacturing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about silicone elastomer additive manufacturing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records anchoring this space
Method for producing silicone elastomer articles with elevated print quality
In an additive 3D printing method for production of shaped articles from silicone elastomers, an elastomeric shaped body is built up step by step, by repeatedly precisely positioning portions of the crosslinkable silicone material and crosslinking by means of electromagnetic radiation. Charges that occur on the surface of the print material or on the article are neutralized by means of an ionization system.US10926470B2, assigned to Wacker Chemie AG, granted 2021-02-23.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20180057682A1 | Organic microgel system for 3D printing of silicone structures | 53 |
| 2 | US20180370141A1 | Method for producing silicone elastomer articles with elevated print quality | 24 |
| 3 | US20200316850A1 | Anatomical silicon models and additive manufacturing thereof | 21 |
| 4 | WO2019053258A1 | Silicone 3D printing ink | 13 |
| 5 | US20220193980A1 | Systems and methods for printing a three-dimensional object | 9 |
| 6 | WO2019175901A1 | System and method of manufacturing prostheses | 8 |
| 7 | US20200216692A1 | Silicone 3D Printing Ink | 8 |
| 8 | US20230119492A1 | Ultra-low interfacial tension support medium for high precision silicone 3D printing | 5 |
| 9 | US20180258229A1 | Cross-linkable silicone compositions for producing highly transparent molded parts by means of ballistic meth… | 5 |
| 10 | WO2020210433A1 | Systems and methods for printing a three-dimensional object | 3 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings; treat them as a signal of what shaped subsequent claims, not 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 say
Three patterns stand out once filing dates, IPC codes and receiving offices are cross-referenced.
Activity has cooled since an early peak
Filing rose to 11 families in 2018 and had fallen to just 2 by the 2022 midpoint. That is a steep decline for a field this narrow, and it points to a small pool of early movers rather than an expanding competitive set.
Process claims outweigh formulation claims
Shaping (B29C) and additive manufacturing (B33Y) subclasses carry far more records than polymer composition codes (C08L at 12, C08G at 7), indicating that the dense prior art sits in how the material is deposited and cured, not in the chemistry itself.
US-centric filing with limited PCT reach
The United States receives close to double the EPO's filings, and WIPO PCT filings sit well below both, at 7. That suggests many applicants have prioritised single-jurisdiction protection rather than broad international coverage.
Co-filing is rare and mostly cross-institutional
Only four co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest links pair a university with either another academic institution or a silicone materials manufacturer, suggesting joint filings cluster around applied research rather than broad industry consortia.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to silicone elastomer additive manufacturing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is still open
Recent-year momentum across the tracked assignees shows a common pattern for this dataset: several of the more active historical filers, including academic and industrial names alike, register zero families in the latest year — consistent with the overall flat-to-declining trend rather than any single company's retreat.
Wacker Chemie
Holds one of the most-cited records in the dataset for silicone elastomer print quality, anchoring the process side of the landscape, though recent-year filing has gone quiet.
ETH Zurich and Florida research consortia
Represent the university-led side of the dataset, with filings concentrated in earlier years and no fresh activity most recently, typical of research-driven rather than product-driven filers.
Vienna Medical University and Politecnico di Milano
The strongest co-assignee link in the dataset pairs a medical university with an engineering institute, pointing to implant- and prosthesis-oriented applications of silicone additive manufacturing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| ETH Zurich | 0 | — |
| University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Wacker Chemie AG | 0 | — |
| PRAYASTA 3D INVENTIONS PVT LTD | 0 | — |
| GRUBL KLAUS | 0 | — |
| Medical University of Vienna | 0 | — |
| Politecnico di Milano | 0 | — |
| Brigham Young University | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a narrow, process-heavy field with a cooling filing curve. Three follow-up angles are worth pursuing before committing filing or freedom-to-operate budget.
Map the process claim boundaries
With B29C and B33Y carrying the bulk of records, a claim-by-claim comparison of curing, positioning and deposition methods would clarify exactly how much room remains for a new process approach.
Explore claim mapping in EurekaWatch for a filing re-acceleration
Given the drop from the 2018 peak, any renewed filing activity — especially from new entrants rather than the established names — would signal a shift worth tracking closely.
Set up monitoring in EurekaAssess the implant-adjacent pocket
A61F filings are a small but distinct slice of the dataset, often tied to cross-institutional collaboration; a focused review could reveal whether this pocket is more open than the core process space.
Run a focused search in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
The most-cited record in this dataset is an organic microgel system for 3D printing of silicone structures, cited 53 times, followed closely by Wacker Chemie's method for producing silicone elastomer articles with elevated print quality. Other frequently cited filings cover anatomical silicone models and general silicone printing inks. Citation counts favour older filings within the searched corpus, so they indicate influence on later claims rather than current commercial dominance, and a freedom-to-operate review should look at claim scope directly rather than relying on citation rank alone.
Based on this dataset, filing activity peaked in 2018 at 11 families and had fallen to just 2 by the 2022 midpoint, with the trend flat to declining since. That said, publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years understate true activity and should not be read as a hard stop. The overall pattern is more consistent with an early wave of core claims followed by a quieter period than with a field in active expansion.
Shaping-of-plastics process claims (IPC B29C) lead with 30 records, followed by additive manufacturing methods generally (B33Y) at 24, meaning the densest prior art covers how silicone is deposited and cured rather than what it is made of. Coating and ink formulations (C09D, 17 records) and polymer compositions (C08L, 12) form a secondary layer. Application-specific claims, such as implants and prostheses under A61F, are comparatively sparse at 8 records, making them a narrower but potentially more open area to review.
The United States leads with 17 filings, more than the European Patent Office's 10, and WIPO PCT filings sit at 7 — below both. Smaller counts appear for Israel, Austria and Canada. The comparatively low PCT figure suggests many applicants in this field have so far prioritised protection in a single major jurisdiction rather than pursuing broad multi-country coverage, which is worth checking before assuming global freedom to operate.
US10926470B2 claims a step-by-step additive 3D printing method for building silicone elastomer articles, in which crosslinkable silicone material is precisely positioned in portions and crosslinked using electromagnetic radiation, with an ionization system used to neutralize surface charges on the print material or finished article. The charge-neutralization step via ionization is a specific technical detail that narrows the claim relative to generic layer-by-layer silicone printing. Anyone building a competing process should check whether their approach manages static charge differently, since that is a plausible design-around point rather than a blocking feature of silicone additive manufacturing generally.
Research Silicone Elastomer Additive Manufacturing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole silicone elastomer additive manufacturing 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.