https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/silicone-rubber-grades-lsr-and-hcr-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Silicone Rubber Grades
Silicone Rubber Grades (LSR and HCR) Patents
  • Filings peaked in 2017 at 48 and have declined since, with the 2022 midpoint at just 4 — a mature claim space rather than a growing one.
  • The top 5 assignees hold 49.5% of all 771 records in scope, and the top 10 extend that to 60.2%, so most of the useful claim territory is already staked.
  • Polymer composition claims (C08L) touch 53.6% of records, far ahead of processing and shaping classes — additive and cure chemistry, not molding hardware, is where the density sits.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
771
Published Records
50%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-22%
3-Yr Growth (lag-adjusted)
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape covers 771 published patent records filed between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off, drawn from filings that reference liquid silicone rubber, high-consistency silicone rubber or silicone rubber grades alongside cure systems, compression set, tear strength, medical or food-grade use, self-lubricating grades, or liquid injection molding. The scope spans platinum-cure and peroxide-cure chemistries together, since both routes are described in overlapping claim language across the corpus.

Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent year in the trend line is understated by construction, not because activity has actually stopped. Family counts, not raw document counts, are used for the assignee ranking so that multi-jurisdiction filing by the same applicant does not inflate its position.

Filing activity and technology mix, 2015–2026
  1. 1SHIN ETSU CHEMICAL CO LTD183
  2. 2DOW CORNING TORAY SILICONE CO LTD82
  3. 3DOW SILICONES CORP58
  4. 4DOW CORNING TORAY CO LTD31
  5. 5ELKEM SILICONES USA CORP28
  6. 6SAINT GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP23
  7. 7BASF SE19
  8. 8WACKER CHEMIE AG16
  9. 9DOW TORAY CO LTD12
  10. 10LORD CORP12
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Silicone Rubber Grades (LSR and HCR) 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
The data

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 771 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density today.

A filing peak already behind us

Annual filings rose to 48 in 2017, the peak so far, then fell through the 2022 midpoint of 4. That pattern reads as a field where core cure-system and compression-set claims were staked early, with later years adding narrower refinements rather than new foundational filings.

A filing peak already behind us0132538504820172018201920202021202220232024202532026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Composition and additive chemistry dominate

C08L (polymer compositions) appears on 53.6% of the 771 records and C08K (additives) on 37.4%, well ahead of B29C shaping (16.0%) or C08J processing (16.2%). Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% — the concentration in C08L and C08K signals that formulation and additive claims, not molding equipment, are the busiest part of the space.

Composition and additive chemistry dominateC08L · Polymer compositions41353.6%C08K · Use of additives in polymers28837.4%C08J · Polymer processing & solutions12516.2%B29C · Shaping of plastics12316.0%C08G · Condensation polymers10113.1%C09D · Coatings, paints & inks9912.8%B32B · Layered products & laminates719.2%D06M · Textile chemical treatment709.1%Other72994.6%

Shares are the percentage of the 771 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 Silicone Rubber Grades (LSR and HCR) covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Silicone Rubber Grades (LSR and HCR) with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about silicone rubber grades (lsr and hcr) and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key patents

Representative and most-cited filings

Representative filing
US8198357B22012-06-12

US8198357B2 — Method for producing molded silicone rubber products using liquid silicone rubber

BLUESTAR SILICONES USA CORP.

Describes a method for producing a molded silicone rubber product from a liquid silicone rubber (LSR) base comprising a vinyl siloxane polymer and a hydride crosslinker, fed alongside a separate inhibitor master batch and catalyst master batch rather than pre-mixed. The split-feed approach lets the inhibitor and catalyst be metered independently of the base polymer at the point of injection molding.Filed by Bluestar Silicones USA Corp., granted 2012-06-12.

US8198357B2 — patent drawing 1US8198357B2 — patent drawing 2
View full filing
Most-cited records in this corpus
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1EP0242219A2Method for producing silicone rubber powder309
2US5507834ATransparent silicone suction socket187
3US4742142AMethod for producing silicone rubber powder179
4JP1992008788ACover sponge packing assembly for hard disc device114
5US6337120B1Gasket for layer-built fuel cells and method for making the same96
6US5008307ALiquid silicone rubber composition capable of yielding a thermal conductive vulcanized product90
7JP1988077942AProduction of particulate silicone rubber85
8EP1094091A1Liquid silicone rubber composition and method for manufacture and method for manufacturing foamed silicone ru…74
9US4743670AMethod for producing silicone rubber powder72
10WO1999056922A1Liquid injection molding process to produce reinforced silicone rubber articles67

Citation counts inside a searched corpus favor older filings simply because they have had more time to be cited — read this as a measure of influence on later filings, not of current commercial relevance.

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 Silicone Rubber Grades (LSR and HCR) 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 numbers mean for a filing decision

Three read-throughs from the concentration, technology mix and citation data, aimed at where a new filing would or would not find open ground.

Concentration
49.5% of 771 records
held by top 5 assignees

The top of the field is dense

Just five assignees account for just under half of all records in scope, and the top ten push that past 60%. New entrants are more likely to find room in narrower additive or application-specific claims than in broad cure-system composition claims, where the largest players have been filing consistently since before the 2017 peak.

Based on family-level assignee ranking, 100 companies.
Technology mix
53.6% vs 16.0%
C08L composition share vs B29C shaping share

Formulation claims outnumber process claims

Polymer composition and additive classes (C08L, C08K) together dominate the corpus far more than shaping or molding classes (B29C, C08J). A team with a genuinely new processing method — rather than a new formulation — is filing against a comparatively thinner prior-art base.

IPC shares computed against the same 771-record denominator; a record may carry multiple classes.
Momentum
2017 = 48 → 2026 = 3
peak-year filings vs latest partial year

Activity has cooled from its peak

The leading assignees by cumulative filings show flat or zero activity in the most recent year, consistent with the overall downward trend from the 2017 peak. That does not mean the chemistry is settled — it means the easy composition claims were filed early, and what remains open is more specific.

Recent-year momentum reflects the most recent complete filing year; publication lag understates the true latest-year count.
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 silicone rubber grades (lsr and hcr), 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 Silicone Rubber Grades (LSR and HCR) 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 holds the ground, and where it thins out

The ranked leaders in this corpus are large industrial silicone producers with decades of continuous filing; below them sits a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants.

Leader
183 records
records from the top-ranked assignee

One filer well ahead of the rest

The leading assignee's record count is more than six times that of the fifth-place company (28 records), a gap that marks it as the reference point for cure-system and composition prior art in this space.

Family-level counts, 100-company ranking.
Mid-field
28 at fifth, 12 at tenth
records at rank 5 and rank 10

A steep drop after the leader, then a plateau

Filing counts fall sharply from the leader to fifth place, then flatten out toward tenth. That plateau suggests a group of similarly sized industrial players competing on formulation variants rather than one company running away with the field.

Based on the 100-company assignee ranking.
Collaboration
10 co-assignee pairs
pairs of co-filing entities

Filing is mostly solo, with a few tight pairings

Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the corpus, and the strongest of them link a parent company to its regional or divisional counterpart rather than independent joint ventures — consistent with internal corporate structuring rather than cross-company R&D partnerships.

Counted at the pair level across the full corpus.
🔍
Under-claimed sub-areas worth checking before filing
These branches show thinner density in the IPC mix relative to the core composition and additive classes.
self-lubricating grade additivesfood-grade certification claimsmedical-grade compression-set formulationstextile coating integration (D06M overlap)layered/laminate silicone-metal bonding
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd.0
Dow Corning Toray Silicone Co., Ltd.0
Dow Silicones Corporation0-100%
Dow Corning Toray Co., Ltd.0
Elkem Silicones USA Corp.0
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.0
BASF SE0
Wacker Chemie AG0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Silicone Rubber Grades (LSR and HCR) 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

The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, a new filing, or tracking a competitor.

Check freedom-to-operate against the leader

With one assignee holding 183 records and the top 5 covering 49.5% of the 771 records in scope, any new composition claim in cure-system or compression-set chemistry should be checked against that leader's portfolio first.

Run a freedom-to-operate check in Eureka

Explore the under-claimed branches

Self-lubricating grades, food-grade certification and textile-coating overlap show thinner IPC density than the core C08L/C08K classes, making them a reasonable starting point for a narrower first claim.

Explore white space in Eureka

Track momentum, not just totals

Filing has fallen from its 2017 peak, and recent-year momentum for the leading assignees is flat or negative — worth monitoring in case activity picks back up around a new cure chemistry.

Set up monitoring in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Silicone Rubber Grades (LSR and HCR) 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 silicone rubber grade patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Silicone Rubber Grades (LSR and HCR) 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 Silicone Rubber Grades (LSR and HCR) in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole silicone rubber grades (lsr and hcr) 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.