Book a demo

Structured Abrasive Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026

Structured Abrasive Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/structured-and-engineered-abrasive-surfaces-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Abrasives
Structured and Engineered Abrasive Surfaces: Patents Behind Shaped Grain and Self-Sharpening Grinding
  • One assignee dominates the ranking. the leader holds 62 of the families in a 16-company ranking, with fifth place at only 3 and tenth place at 2 — a steep drop from the top.
  • Filing peaked in 2020 at 10 records. and has not returned to that level since, though the most recent year is still an undercount because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months.
  • Grinding-tool and materials classes dominate the composition. B24D and C09K together cover most of the 70 records in scope, while semiconductor-adjacent H01L appears in only 11.4% of records.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
70
Published Records
US
Leading Jurisdiction
16
Active Filers Ranked
2020
Peak Filing Year

Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this landscape covers

This review maps patent activity around structured abrasive surfaces: shaped abrasive particles, precision-shaped grain, pyramid-structure geometries and the finishing sequences built around them. The search combines terms for the particle geometry itself with terms for the mechanical behaviour it is meant to produce — consistent scratch depth, self-sharpening wear, or microreplication of a repeating feature. That pairing narrows the corpus to records where a specific shape is claimed for a specific functional outcome, rather than abrasives generally.

The 70 records in scope span 2015 to the 2026-07-31 cut-off, with filings concentrated in a small number of grinding-tool and materials IPC subclasses. Publication lag means the last one to two years understate true filing activity; treat the trend line's tail as a floor, not a ceiling.

Filing activity and technology composition
  1. 13M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES CO62
  2. 2DUESCHER WAYNE O4
  3. 3LEHUU DUY K3
  4. 4BRETSCHER KATHRYN R3
  5. 5SHANTI NOAH O3
  6. 6RULE JOSEPH D2
  7. 7NEHRING VINCENT W2
  8. 8LEWANDOWSKI KEVIN M2
  9. 9NOVELLUS SYSTEMS INC2
  10. 10XIE JUNQING2
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Structured and Engineered Abrasive Surfaces 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
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

The two views below use different denominators: the trend counts records by publication year, while the IPC composition counts records against classes they carry — a single record can sit in several classes at once.

Filing activity, 2017-2026

Filings rose to a peak of 10 records in 2020 and have not matched that level since; growth rate is not computable from fewer than four complete post-lag years, and the final year shown is partial.

Filing activity, 2017-202603581002017201820191020202021202220232024202502026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

IPC subclass composition

B24D (grinding tools & abrasives) appears in 72.9% of the 70 records, followed by C09K (misc. materials) at 45.7% and B24B (grinding & polishing) at 37.1%. Because records carry multiple classes, these figures sum to more than 100% of the record total — that is expected and not a data error.

IPC subclass compositionB24D · Grinding tools & abrasives5172.9%C09K · Materials for misc. applicatio…3245.7%B24B · Grinding & polishing2637.1%C09C · Inorganic pigments & treatment2332.9%B29C · Shaping of plastics1014.3%C08F · Addition polymers (vinyl etc.)912.9%H01L · Semiconductor devices811.4%C08G · Condensation polymers57.1%Other1115.7%

Shares are the percentage of the 70 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 Structured and Engineered Abrasive Surfaces covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Structured and Engineered Abrasive Surfaces with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about structured and engineered abrasive surfaces and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key Patents

Most-cited records and a recent filing

Representative recent filing
WO2026120450A12026-06-11

WO2026120450A1 — Structured abrasive particles, articles and methods of using the same

3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY

The filing describes an abrasive rotary tool built around a cylindrical tool body with a conformable abrasive film wrapped over the edge joining its curved and circular faces. The film carries a base portion and a series of protrusions that taper from a wider base width to a narrower outer width, with a structured abrasive layer disposed on top of that tapered protrusion geometry.Filed by 3M Innovative Properties Company; the claimed geometry is a tapered-protrusion abrasive film wrapped around a rotary tool edge, distinct from the flat-lapping raised-island designs that dominate the citation table.

WO2026120450A1 — patent drawing 1WO2026120450A1 — patent drawing 2
View full filing
Highest-cited records in the corpus
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US20100003904A1High speed flat lapping platen, raised islands and abrasive beads381
2US6769969B1Raised island abrasive, method of use and lapping apparatus225
3US20050032469A1Raised island abrasive, lapping apparatus and method of use139
4WO2014022462A1Abrasive elements with precisely shaped features, abrasive articles fabricated therefrom and methods of makin…101
5WO2014022465A1Abrasive articles with precisely shaped features and method of making thereof101
6WO2014022453A1Abrasive element precursor with precisely shaped features and method of making thereof100
7US7520800B2Raised island abrasive, lapping apparatus and method of use72
8US8062098B2High speed flat lapping platen54
9US8333360B2Polymeric molds and articles made therefrom49
10US20150209932A1Abrasive articles with precisely shaped features and method of making thereof48

Citation counts favour older records simply by virtue of having had longer to accumulate them; read them as a signal of influence on the field, 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 Structured and Engineered Abrasive Surfaces 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 patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the IPC composition are read together.

Concentration
62 of 70 families
leader's share of the ranked total

One assignee holds most of the ranked claim space

The leading assignee accounts for 62 records against a fifth-place figure of only 3 and a tenth-place figure of 2. That gap is steep enough that a new entrant should assume the core shaped-grain geometries are already occupied by one filer, and look instead at adjacent finishing-sequence or material-composition claims.

Based on the 16-company assignee ranking
Filing momentum
Peak 10 in 2020
highest single-year filing count

Activity has cooled since its 2020 peak

No year since 2020 has matched its filing count, though the most recent years are understated by the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication. A flat recent trend combined with a concentrated leader suggests the core geometry claims are mature rather than newly opened.

Filing trend, 2017-2026
Technology mix
72.9% carry B24D
share of 70 records

Grinding-tool claims anchor the field, materials claims run close behind

B24D (grinding tools & abrasives) touches the large majority of records, but C09K (materials) and C09C (inorganic pigment treatment) each cover roughly a third to nearly half of the same set, meaning most filings pair a tool-geometry claim with a materials claim rather than filing either alone.

IPC subclass shares, 70 records in scope
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 structured and engineered abrasive surfaces, 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 Structured and Engineered Abrasive Surfaces 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 is filing, and where the gaps sit

The assignee ranking is short — 16 companies — and heavily skewed toward one filer, with named individual inventors also appearing as separate assignee entries rather than being folded into a corporate entity.

Leader
62 records
of the ranked total

A single dominant filer

One assignee's family count dwarfs every other entry in the ranking, and its co-assignee pairings with several named inventors recur across multiple records — a sign of a stable internal team working the same claim territory over years rather than a one-off filing burst.

Assignee ranking, 16 companies
Mid-tier
3 records
fifth-place count

A thin second tier

Fifth place in the ranking sits at just 3 records and tenth place at 2, so beyond the leader there is no clearly established second competitor — only a long tail of low-volume filers each holding a handful of families.

Assignee ranking, 16 companies
Momentum
0 in latest year
across tracked assignees

Recent-year activity has gone quiet across the board

Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including the leader, shows zero filings in the latest year, with the leader down -100% year-on-year. Given publication lag, this likely reflects reporting delay rather than an actual stop in R&D, but it means the most recent public record understates current activity for every filer, not just the smaller ones.

Recent-year momentum by assignee
🔍
Under-claimed branches worth checking before filing
Sub-areas where the IPC composition thins out relative to the core grinding-tool classes
semiconductor-substrate shaped-grain finishingcondensation-polymer bonding matrices for structured grainvinyl addition-polymer binder systemsplastics-shaping routes for precision grain arrays
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
3M Innovative Properties Company0-100%
DUESCHER WAYNE O0
SHANTI NOAH O0
LEHUU DUY K0
BRETSCHER KATHRYN R0
XIE JUNQING0
RULE JOSEPH D0
NEHRING VINCENT W0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Structured and Engineered Abrasive Surfaces 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 ranking and trend point to a mature, concentrated core with quieter adjacent branches. Two directions follow from that.

Check the under-claimed IPC branches before drafting

H01L, C08G and C08F each cover a modest minority of the 70 records, well below the B24D/C09K core — worth a closer look before assuming the geometry space is fully occupied there too.

Explore white space in Eureka

Watch for the publication-lag catch-up

Every tracked assignee shows zero filings in the latest year; expect that figure to revise upward as pending applications publish over the next 12-18 months.

Track filing activity in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Structured and Engineered Abrasive Surfaces 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 about structured abrasive patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Structured and Engineered Abrasive Surfaces 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 Structured and Engineered Abrasive Surfaces in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole structured and engineered abrasive surfaces 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.

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.