Stereolithography Testing Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- Small, concentrated field. Only 18 patent families match this search, with filings peaking in 2020 at five and dropping toward flat by 2022 — this is a niche, not a race.
- One document carries outsized weight. US20210229364A1, on micron-scale property control during stereolithography, holds 20 citations — more than double the next most-cited record.
- Filing sits almost entirely in the US. Thirteen of the tracked filings came through the United States receiving office, with India and Canada trailing far behind.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 records) with 2024 (2) — 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 18 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This review tracks patent families at the intersection of stereolithography and vat photopolymerization with testing and inspection methods — dimensional inspection, mechanical testing, CT scanning and cure-degree measurement — filed under additive manufacturing, acoustic/ultrasonic testing and photopolymer-shaping IPC classes. It is a narrow cross-section rather than the whole of stereolithography patenting: it isolates the quality-control and characterization layer that sits on top of the printing process itself.
Eighteen families are enough to see structure but not enough to support fine-grained ranking. Treat single-digit differences between assignees as noise, and read the trend line knowing that publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent year is always undercounted.
Filing trend and technology composition
The dataset is small enough that every subclass and every year carries visible weight — read the composition chart as a map of where claim density already sits, not as a measure of market size.
Filings rose to a peak, then flattened
Activity was zero in 2017, climbed to a peak of five families in 2020, and had fallen back to two by the 2022 midpoint. There is no second wave visible yet in the published record, though the most recent years are still understated due to publication lag.
Claims cluster around printing and polymer chemistry
Every one of the 18 families touches B33Y (additive manufacturing), and 17 touch B29C (shaping of plastics) — confirming this is fundamentally a 3D-printing dataset. Condensation polymer chemistry (C08G, 10 records) and plastics moulding materials (B29K, 8) form a secondary cluster around resin formulation, while addition polymers, additives and polymer compositions (C08F, C08K, C08L) each sit at 5. Sterilising and disinfecting (A61L) appears in only 2 records, marking it as the thinnest-claimed adjacent branch.
Shares are the percentage of the 18 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Stereolithography Testing and Inspection with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about stereolithography testing and inspection and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records
Stereolithography with micron scale control of properties
Stereolithography with micron scale control of properties is described herein. In one aspect, a computer-implemented method for 3-D printing of a material can include generating a functional relation predicting one or more physical properties of the material resulting from printing parameters; algebraically or numerically solving the functional relation to generate a second functional relation predicting expected printing parameters resulting in the one or more physical properties; and printing the material via a photopolymerization printer according to the set of printing parameters determined by the second functional relation.Filed by The Regents of the University of Colorado; published 2021-07-29. With 20 citations, this is the single most-referenced document in the dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20210229364A1 | Stereolithography with micron scale control of properties | 20 |
| 2 | US20220088851A1 | Synthesis and 3D printing of photocurable colloids | 9 |
| 3 | US10889053B1 | Custom surgical devices and method for manufacturing the same | 5 |
| 4 | US11639416B2 | Macromers and compositions for photocuring processes | 4 |
| 5 | US12065539B2 | Macromers and compositions for photocuring processes | 2 |
| 6 | US20230038063A1 | Synthesis and 3D printing of photocurable colloids | 1 |
Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings; a low count on a recent family does not mean it is weak.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (6 of 6 rows); 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 about this niche
With only 18 families in scope, the signal here is about where claim density already exists rather than about market scale.
Momentum has cooled, not accelerated
Filing activity built to a peak in 2020 and had halved by 2022. That is a small enough sample that a handful of new filings could reverse the trend, but nothing in the published record yet shows a rebound.
One filing anchors the field's prior art
US20210229364A1's citation count is more than double the second-placed record, US20220088851A1 on photocurable colloid synthesis and printing. Anyone filing on property prediction or process-parameter control in stereolithography should expect examiners to cite it.
Filing is heavily US-centred
Thirteen of 18 records entered through the US receiving office. India and Canada each account for a small minority, which suggests this quality-control layer of stereolithography IP has not yet been pursued broadly outside the US.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to stereolithography testing and inspection, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claims
Assignee activity in this dataset shows no recent-year momentum for any tracked entity — every named assignee logged zero filings in the latest year, consistent with the broader flattening trend.
University research anchors the prior art
The Regents of the University of Colorado hold the most-cited document in the set, on predictive control of physical properties during photopolymerization printing — a foundational reference for property-prediction claims.
Resin chemistry filers cluster around macromers
Filings on macromers and compositions for photocuring processes appear twice in the most-cited list, pointing to sustained interest in resin formulation rather than in the testing hardware itself.
Medical applications form a distinct sub-cluster
A filing on custom surgical devices manufactured via stereolithography shows this dataset is not purely industrial — medical-device customization is a recurring, if smaller, thread.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Poly Medical Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Virginia Tech Intellectual Properties, Inc. | 0 | — |
| The Regents of the University of Colorado | 0 | — |
| Loctite Corporation | 0 | — |
| BASF SE | 0 | — |
| RESTOR3D INC | 0 | — |
| RAMACHANDRA COLLEGE OF ENG | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a narrow, US-heavy field with one dominant reference and several thinly claimed adjacent branches.
Map the property-prediction claim boundary
Before filing anything on predictive control of print parameters, understand exactly what US20210229364A1 covers and where its claims stop.
Explore claim scope in EurekaWatch the resin-chemistry cluster
Macromer and photocuring composition filings recur across the most-cited records — track new entrants in this sub-area as formulation work continues.
Track assignees in EurekaAssess the under-claimed branches
Cure-degree sensing, CT void detection and sterilisation-compatible resin testing all show thin claim density relative to the core printing classes.
Run a white space search in EurekaCommon questions
This dataset tracks 18 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine stereolithography or vat photopolymerization with testing methods such as dimensional inspection, mechanical testing, CT scanning or cure-degree measurement. That is a small, specialized slice of the broader additive-manufacturing patent space, not a count of all stereolithography patents. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true number of families filed in the most recent year is likely higher than currently visible.
The most-cited record in this dataset belongs to The Regents of the University of Colorado, covering predictive control of physical properties during photopolymerization printing. Other assignees appear around resin chemistry and medical-device applications, but with only 18 families total, no single filer holds a dominant share. Recent-year filing activity is flat across every tracked assignee, so current standing reflects historical filings more than active momentum.
The data shows filings climbing to a peak of five families in 2020 before falling back to around two by 2022, with no clear rebound since. This could reflect a genuine slowdown in new inspection-method innovation, consolidation around existing approaches, or simply the reporting lag that always understates the most recent two to three years. A small sample size of 18 families also means the trend line is sensitive to just a few filings moving in or out of scope.
General 3D-printing patents cover the printing process itself — resin formulation, laser or projector systems, and build mechanics. This dataset is narrower: it isolates patents that specifically address verifying the result, through dimensional inspection, mechanical testing, CT scanning or cure-degree measurement. Every family in this set still touches core additive-manufacturing classification, but the testing and inspection layer is what separates it from the broader printing-process literature.
The clearest gaps sit in branches with thin representation relative to the core printing classes — sterilisation-compatible resin testing, in-line cure-degree sensing, and CT-based void detection for printed lattice structures all show low claim density in this dataset. Real-time ultrasonic inspection of parts in their green (uncured) state and closed-loop dimensional feedback are similarly under-claimed. These are reasonable areas to probe further, though a full freedom-to-operate search should confirm density before committing to a specific claim scope.
Research Stereolithography Testing and Inspection in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole stereolithography testing and inspection 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.