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 →Filing growth compares 2021 (55 records) with 2024 (12) — 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 752 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
This landscape tracks patent families at the intersection of silicone elastomer chemistry — silicone rubber, polysiloxane formulations — and the manufacturing methods used to take them from lab batch to production volume: continuous compounding, high-volume molding, and production scale-up. It spans 752 published families filed between 2015 and 2026, with the most recent year necessarily incomplete because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
The technology mix leans heavily toward formulation and additive chemistry — polymer compositions, additive use, and processing solutions together account for the bulk of records — with shaping equipment and catalysis claims forming a smaller but still substantial secondary cluster. Filing offices concentrate in the United States and Europe, with a meaningful share routed through the PCT system and into Germany and Canada, indicating deliberate multi-jurisdiction protection rather than purely domestic filing.
Two views of the same 752-family dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how those filings split across IPC subclasses.
Annual filings climbed from 14 in 2017 to a peak of 55 in 2021, then fell back toward the 2022 midpoint of 17 — a pattern consistent with a technology area where the core claim space has already been staked out and later filers are working narrower, more defensive positions rather than opening new ground.
C08L (polymer compositions, 317 records) and C08K (additives, 256) together outweigh B29C (shaping of plastics, 130), showing that most applicants are protecting what goes into the silicone compound rather than the machinery that shapes it. B01J (catalysis, 119), C09J (adhesives, 85) and C09D (coatings, 78) form a secondary tier of application-specific claims built on top of that base chemistry.
Shares are the percentage of the 752 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about silicone elastomer scale-up and mass production and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe method feeds polydiorganosiloxane gum, reinforcing filler and processing aid continuously into a co-rotating twin-screw extruder, mixes them at 200-300°C, discharges the extrudate, and feeds it into a second, counter-rotating twin-screw extruder for further processing — a continuous, two-stage compounding line built to replace batch mixing at volume.Filed by Dow Corning Toray Silicone Company, Limited; granted 1995-04-25.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20110189440A1 | Systems, Devices, and/or Methods for Manufacturing Castings | 289 |
| 2 | EP0787772A2 | Silicone rubber composition | 247 |
| 3 | US9315663B2 | Systems, devices, and/or methods for manufacturing castings | 201 |
| 4 | US7785098B1 | Systems for large area micro mechanical systems | 168 |
| 5 | US5866249A | Pressure-sensitive adhesive based on partially oriented and partially crystallized elastomer | 138 |
| 6 | US6156285A | Method for densifying particulate silica | 87 |
| 7 | US4894308A | Process for preparing electrophotographic toner | 87 |
| 8 | US20160053056A1 | Organosiloxane compositions and coatings, manufactured articles, methods and uses | 86 |
| 9 | WO2016023937A1 | Surface-treated fillers for breathable films | 84 |
| 10 | US7893413B1 | Systems, devices, and methods for large area micro mechanical systems | 79 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records — read them as a signal of influence on later filings, not as a measure of current relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
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 →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 →Three read-outs from the trend, citation and co-filing data that matter for a filing or freedom-to-operate decision.
Annual filings rose from 14 in 2017 to 55 in 2021 before falling back to 17 by the 2022 midpoint, and every major assignee tracked shows 0 filings in the latest year. New entrants are filing into a claim space that earlier applicants have already largely mapped.
The corpus is weighted toward what the silicone compound is made of — polymer composition, additives, condensation chemistry — rather than how it is physically produced at scale. Anyone entering on the equipment side faces a comparatively thinner prior-art layer than someone entering on formulation.
The strongest co-assignee pairing links two entities within the same corporate group at 45 shared filings; the next strongest pairs link a single company to named individual inventors at 18 each. Only 10 co-assignee pairs exist across the whole dataset, indicating most applicants file solo rather than through joint ventures.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to silicone elastomer scale-up and mass production, with the prior art for and against each one.
Filing activity concentrates among a small set of established silicone producers, with a long tail of single-filing entrants behind them. Momentum across the leaders has flattened, which changes where a new filer should look.
The assignees with the deepest historical filing in this dataset are logging zero filings in the latest tracked year, with at least two showing a -100% year-on-year drop. That is a maturity signal, not an exit signal — the core compositions are likely already protected and later activity may be showing up under different, narrower search terms.
The strongest co-assignee relationship links two entities inside one corporate group, and the next two strongest link that same corporate filer to named individual inventors. This points to a small number of internal R&D pipelines producing most of the joint filings, rather than cross-company licensing or joint ventures.
The United States (216) and the European Patent Office (176) are the two largest receiving offices, with WIPO/PCT (107), Germany (41) and Canada (38) forming a secondary tier. A freedom-to-operate check limited to a single jurisdiction will miss a large share of this corpus.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Dow Silicones Corporation | 0 | — |
| Momentive Performance Materials Inc. | 0 | — |
| Blueshift Materials, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Omya International AG | 0 | — |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | 0 | — |
| Cabot Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Dow Corning Toray Silicone Company, Limited | 0 | — |
| Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation | 0 | — |
The dataset points to a claim space that is largely staked out on formulation and thinner on continuous-processing equipment. Two directions follow from that.
If the target composition sits inside the C08L/C08K cluster, expect dense prior art and plan a design-around from the outset rather than a clearance search alone.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaThe gap between composition filings and shaping/processing filings suggests underclaimed ground in continuous compounding hardware and process control — worth a dedicated claim chart before committing to a filing strategy.
Explore white space with EurekaThe foundational filing in this dataset is US5409978A, held by Dow Corning Toray Silicone Company, which claims a two-stage continuous compounding process using a co-rotating twin-screw extruder followed by a counter-rotating twin-screw extruder to continuously mix and heat-vulcanize silicone rubber compounds. Filings citing this approach cluster in the B29C (shaping of plastics) and C08J (polymer processing) subclasses, which together hold a smaller share of the corpus than the composition-focused C08L and C08K subclasses. Anyone building a continuous compounding line should check both the original extrusion claims and later formulation patents that specify compatible filler and processing-aid ratios, since the two are often filed as companion applications by the same assignee.
Filing activity in this space concentrates among a small number of established silicone producers and their corporate affiliates, with co-assignee filing patterns showing internal group relationships rather than cross-company partnerships. The strongest co-assignee pairing in the dataset links two entities inside a single corporate family at 45 shared filings. Beyond that top tier, the dataset shows a long tail of single-filing entrants, meaning ownership is concentrated at the top but the surrounding claim space still has room for narrowly targeted new filings.
Filings in this corpus rose from 14 in 2017 to a peak of 55 in 2021, then fell back to 17 by the 2022 midpoint, and every major assignee tracked shows zero filings in the latest year. This pattern typically reflects a claim space where the core compositions and processing methods have already been protected by early movers, leaving later filers with narrower, more defensive options. It is also worth noting that publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any such trend will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be.
US5409978A claims a specific continuous, two-stage twin-screw compounding process for heat-vulcanizing silicone rubber: continuous feeding of polydiorganosiloxane gum, reinforcing filler and processing aid into a co-rotating extruder at 200-300°C, followed by discharge into a counter-rotating twin-screw extruder. It blocks direct replication of that two-stage, temperature-specified extrusion sequence for heat-vulcanizing compounds, not silicone rubber compounding in general. A design-around would need to change the extruder staging, temperature range, or feed sequence, or move to a different cure chemistry entirely, and any freedom-to-operate review should also check later, narrower filings built on the same base process.
The clearest gap sits between the dense composition-side filing (C08L and C08K, over 250 records each) and the comparatively thinner processing and equipment side (B29C at 130, B01J at 119). Sub-areas such as continuous two-stage extrusion control, in-line cure monitoring for high-temperature-vulcanizing lines, and catalyst recovery within continuous compounding show lower filing density than the core formulation claims. That gap is a reasonable place to look for a first claim, though it should be confirmed against the specific competitor filings in that subclass before drafting, since low density in an IPC bucket does not guarantee an open path.
Go past this page: query the whole silicone elastomer 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.