Stereolithography Post-Processing Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- Flat filing curve. Filings peaked at 10 in 2022 and have not grown past that since — this is not an accelerating field.
- No dominant assignee. The strongest co-filing pair appears only twice, and every tracked assignee shows zero filings in the most recent year — ownership is fragmented, not consolidated.
- Dentistry is a real secondary cluster. A61C (dentistry) accounts for 9 of 61 records, alongside the core B29C/B33Y additive-manufacturing classes — a niche worth watching separately from general SLA finishing.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent families at the intersection of stereolithography and vat photopolymerization with the specific post-build steps that turn a green part into a finished one: post-curing, solvent washing, support removal and surface finishing. The search combines topic terms for the printing process with claim-and-description language for these downstream steps, filtered to the additive-manufacturing IPC classes (B29C64/40, B29C71, B33Y40). It excludes general SLA printing-process patents that do not touch post-processing.
The dataset spans 61 published families from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off. Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be — treat the tail of the trend as incomplete, not as a real slowdown on top of the one already visible at the peak.
Filing trend and technology mix
Two views of the same 61 families: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 10 in 2022, then held flat rather than continuing to climb — the field grew into a plateau rather than an ongoing expansion. With the most recent years undercounted due to publication lag, the true post-2022 trajectory is still an open question.
IPC composition
B29C (shaping of plastics) and B33Y (additive manufacturing) dominate, present in 59 and 48 of the 61 records respectively, confirming this is squarely a plastics-3D-printing dataset. Smaller but consistent clusters in C08F (addition polymers), A61C (dentistry) and B22F (powder metallurgy) mark where post-processing claims cross into adjacent materials and application domains.
Shares are the percentage of the 61 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Stereolithography Post-Processing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about stereolithography post-processing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe documents shaping this space
US12285915B2 — Methods of post-curing additive manufacturing parts using electron beams
A method of forming a part includes 3D printing a photopolymerizable resin and forming a preformed part and subsequently post-curing the preformed part with electron beams. The preformed part may be cured via UV curing. A section of the preformed part post-cured with electron beams may have a thickness of at least 1.0 centimeter, for example, at least 2.0 centimeters or at least 3.0 centimeters. An electron beam dosage to post-cure the preformed part may be between 10 kilogray (kGy) and 100 kGy. The preformed part may be 3D printed using stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP) or material jetting (MJ) and the photopolymerizable resin may include at least one of an acrylate functional group.Filed by Ford Global Technologies, LLC, published 2025-04-29 — one of the most recent filings in the set.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5143663A | Stereolithography method and apparatus | 304 |
| 2 | US6107008A | Ionizing radiation post-curing of objects produced by stereolithography and other methods | 42 |
| 3 | EP0403146A2 | Integrated stereolithography | 26 |
| 4 | US20210308947A1 | Method for Producing a Component by Way of Stereolithography | 20 |
| 5 | US20180141243A1 | Post-curing method and stereolithography method | 16 |
| 6 | JP1992506044A | Integrated stereolithography | 11 |
| 7 | US10940639B1 | Glass scintillators and methods of manufacturing the same | 8 |
| 8 | US20200376754A1 | Post -exposure device for products produced by stereolithography, and method for solidifying products produce… | 6 |
| 9 | CA3007533A1 | Stereolithography device comprising cartridge unit | 6 |
| 10 | US20220032539A1 | Stereolithography device comprising cartridge device | 5 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had longer to accumulate references — read them as markers of influence on later drafting, not as a ranking 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 mean for R&D and IP planning
Three read-outs from the trend, the IPC mix and the citation table that matter for anyone deciding where to file or where to watch.
The field plateaued rather than took off
Filings climbed from 2 in 2017 to 10 in 2022 and did not exceed that level afterward. A flat post-peak curve after seven years of growth suggests the core post-curing and washing techniques have been substantially claimed by early entrants, with newer filings occupying narrower variations rather than opening new ground.
Foundational stereolithography art still anchors the field
The most-cited record in this set, US5143663A, dates back to the origin of stereolithography itself and carries 304 citations — far ahead of any post-processing-specific patent. Modern post-curing and finishing claims are being drafted in the shadow of that original apparatus patent, not in a clean claim space.
Dental SLA finishing is a distinct sub-market
Nearly one in six records in this set carries an A61C dentistry classification alongside the core additive-manufacturing classes. Post-curing and surface-finishing methods tuned for dental appliances and models form a recognisable pocket within the broader landscape, separate from general industrial SLA finishing.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to stereolithography post-processing, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| STADLMANN KLAUS | KLAUS STADLMANN | 2 |
The single strongest co-assignee pairing in this dataset appears only twice, indicating that most work here is filed by single entities rather than through joint development arrangements.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
No single assignee dominates this dataset, and every top-tracked filer shows zero activity in the most recent year — a pattern consistent with either a maturing niche or a lag in fresh disclosures still working through publication.
Momentum has stalled across the board
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum — from 3D Systems to Ford Global Technologies to Nexa3D — shows no filings in the latest year of the dataset. Combined with the flat post-2022 trend, this points to a field where the visible filing wave has already crested, pending whatever the publication-lag tail eventually reveals.
This is largely a single-filer field
The strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset, between Klaus Stadlmann filing entities, appears in only two records. There is no evidence here of dense joint-venture or cross-licensing filing activity; most patents in this space are filed by one organisation acting alone.
US and Europe carry the bulk of filings
The United States accounts for 27 of the tracked filings and the EPO a further 16, with PCT, Canada, Israel and Australia trailing well behind. Anyone clearing freedom-to-operate for post-curing or finishing methods should treat US and European coverage as the priority jurisdictions, not an afterthought.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| 3D Systems Corporation | 0 | — |
| STADLMANN KLAUS | 0 | — |
| Nexa3D Inc. | 0 | — |
| Ford Global Technologies, LLC | 0 | — |
| POLYFOS 3D LTD | 0 | — |
| Japan Science and Technology Agency | 0 | — |
| Shofu Inc. | 0 | — |
| Tokuyama Dental Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The trend and assignee data point to specific next steps depending on whether you are scoping freedom-to-operate, planning R&D, or evaluating a filing strategy.
Check freedom-to-operate against the citation leaders
US5143663A and US6107008A anchor much of the surrounding claim language on radiation and post-curing methods. Any new post-curing process should be checked against these before drafting.
Explore the citation networkWatch the dentistry and powder-metallurgy crossovers
The A61C and B22F clusters are small but distinct from the core B29C/B33Y filings. A targeted search inside those crossovers can surface competitors not visible in a general SLA search.
Run a focused sub-searchRevisit the trend once the lag tail fills in
The 2024-2026 years will fill in further as publications catch up. A fresh pull in twelve months will show whether the field truly plateaued or is quietly resuming growth.
Set a monitoring alertCommon questions on stereolithography post-processing patents
No single company dominates this dataset of 61 families — filing is fragmented across a number of assignees including 3D Systems, Ford Global Technologies, and Nexa3D, none of which show more than a handful of records. The strongest co-filing relationship in the set, between two Klaus Stadlmann filing entities, appears in only two records. This is a field to watch for emerging leaders rather than one with an entrenched incumbent controlling core claims.
In this landscape, post-processing covers the steps applied after a part comes off the SLA or vat-photopolymerization printer: post-curing (UV or electron-beam), solvent washing to remove uncured resin, support structure removal, and surface finishing. These are distinct from patents on the printing process itself, which is why the search specifically requires post-processing language in the title, abstract or claims rather than relying on stereolithography terms alone.
Filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 10 in 2022, then held flat rather than continuing upward. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2024-2026 figures in any pull will look artificially low and should not yet be read as a genuine decline on top of the plateau already visible at the peak. A follow-up check in a year or two will show whether the field is truly stalled or simply under-reported in its most recent years.
US12285915B2, assigned to Ford Global Technologies and published in April 2025, claims post-curing SLA, DLP or material-jetting parts with electron beams at specified dosages and section thicknesses, on top of an initial UV cure. It is one of the more recent filings in this dataset and signals that automotive-scale part thickness and electron-beam dosing are now being actively claimed rather than left as general prior art. Anyone developing electron-beam post-cure processes for thick photopolymer sections should review its specific dosage and thickness ranges before finalising a competing process.
Based on IPC co-occurrence, the smaller clusters — dentistry-specific surface finishing (A61C, 9 of 61 records), powder-metallurgy crossover post-processing (B22F, 4 records), and photolithography-adjacent curing methods (G03F, 4 records) — carry noticeably thinner coverage than the core B29C and B33Y classes. These pockets are good starting points for a novelty search before investing in R&D, since they show real but limited prior filing activity rather than dense, contested claim space.
Research Stereolithography Post-Processing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole stereolithography post-processing 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.