Titanium Additive Manufacturing Qualification Patents: Leaders & Gaps 2026
- Filing is tightly concentrated: the top 5 assignees account for 79.2% of all 77 records in scope, and the top 10 for 94.8% — a long tail of single-digit filers fills the rest.
- Growth has cooled since the 2017 peak: filings ran 17 in 2017 and fell from 13 in 2021 to 8 in 2024, a -38% move over that span, though 2025-2026 figures are still filling in.
- Powder metallurgy dominates the claim map: B22F covers 41.6% of records, ahead of additive manufacturing classifications (37.7%) and implant applications (31.2%), showing process control still outweighs end-use claims.
Filing growth compares 2021 (13 records) with 2024 (8) — 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 77 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent activity where titanium additive manufacturing intersects with the qualification problems that decide whether a printed part can be certified: lack of fusion defects, alpha case formation, build orientation effects on fatigue life, hot isostatic pressing, and formal process qualification routes. The scope spans 77 published records filed between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off, drawn from filings that name both a titanium AM manufacturing method and a qualification-relevant defect or treatment mechanism.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate real filing activity. Readers should treat 2024 as the most recent year with a reasonably complete count, and treat 2025 and 2026 as still filling in.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 77-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings peaked at 17 in 2017. Activity moderated afterward, moving from 13 in 2021 to 8 in 2024 — a -38% change over that three-year window. 2025 and 2026 counts are partial due to publication lag and should not be read as a continued decline.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
B22F (powder metallurgy) appears in 41.6% of the 77 records, B33Y (additive manufacturing) in 37.7%, and A61F (implants and prostheses) in 31.2%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares are each measured against the full 77-record total and add up to more than 100% — that is expected, not an error.
Shares are the percentage of the 77 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Titanium Additive Manufacturing Qualification with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about titanium additive manufacturing qualification and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this dataset
Microstructural homogenization of additively manufactured titanium articles
A method of modifying the physical characteristics of a base titanium alloy article previously manufactured through a selective melting process is disclosed. The method includes introducing hydrogen through a thermohydrogen process to the base titanium alloy article, producing an isotropic, fine-grained equiaxed microstructure by lowering the beta transus temperature, heating above that lowered temperature to form hydrided beta, then adjusting temperature to drive a eutectoid transformation.Filed by Praxis Powder Technology, published 2022-01-06. It targets post-build microstructure correction rather than in-process control, a distinct qualification route from the gas-jet impingement approach that leads this field's citation count.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20190001437A1 | Solidification refinement and general phase transformation control through application of in SITU gas jet imp… | 56 |
| 2 | WO2019002563A2 | Solidification refinement and general phase transformation control through application of in SITU gas jet imp… | 33 |
| 3 | US20190192303A1 | Implant surfaces that enhance osteoinduction | 19 |
| 4 | WO2021165545A1 | Method for the obtaining of cost effective geometrically complex pieces | 18 |
| 5 | US20200327267A1 | Interstitial control during additive manufacturing | 13 |
| 6 | US20190231535A1 | Titanium implant surfaces free from alpha case and with enhanced osteoinduction | 13 |
| 7 | US10821000B2 | Titanium implant surfaces free from alpha case and with enhanced osteoinduction | 11 |
| 8 | US20200070249A1 | Method and apparatus for finishing complex and curved surfaces using a conformal approach for additively manu… | 10 |
| 9 | US20210394268A1 | 4d printing method and application of titanium-nickel shape memory alloy | 8 |
| 10 | CN117620205A | 一种增材制造钛合金的制备方法 | 7 |
Citation counts reflect influence inside this searched corpus and skew toward older filings — treat them as a signal of who set the technical reference points, not of what matters most today.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 filing data actually tells you
Three read-throughs from the concentration, timing and classification figures above.
A short list controls most of the ground
With the top 5 assignees holding 79.2% of all 77 records and the top 10 holding 94.8%, this is not a fragmented field. New entrants filing broad process claims are likely to collide with existing coverage rather than find open space.
Activity has cooled from its 2017 peak
Filings dropped from 13 in 2021 to 8 in 2024. That is a real three-year decline, but 2025-2026 counts are still incomplete due to publication lag, so it should not be extrapolated into a forecast of continued decline.
Process claims outweigh end-use claims
Powder metallurgy classifications (B22F, 41.6%) and additive manufacturing classifications (B33Y, 37.7%) both outpace implant-specific claims (A61F, 31.2%), indicating the field is still primarily contested on manufacturing method rather than final application.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to titanium additive manufacturing qualification, with the prior art for and against each one.
The assignee landscape
The ranked list covers 19 companies across the 77 records in scope — not a top-50 or top-100, the full set the data endpoint returns for this search.
One filer holds a clear lead
The leading assignee holds 24 of the 77 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 6 and tenth place at 2 — a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one.
A thin mid-tier before the long tail
Fifth place sits at 6 records, and by tenth place the count is down to 2. Below that, filing activity is sparse and largely single-jurisdiction.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated
Only 7 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, with the strongest pairings clustering around a single organisation and its named inventors rather than cross-company joint ventures.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Titan Spine, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Norsk Titanium AS | 0 | — |
| University of Utah Research Foundation | 0 | — |
| Rovalma SA | 0 | — |
| Praxis Powder Technology, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences | 0 | — |
| MATHISEN MARTIN BORLAUG | 0 | — |
| Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with a dominant filer, a thin mid-tier, and several specific process branches that remain lightly claimed.
Map claims against your own process route
If your qualification approach touches in-process gas control, post-build thermohydrogen treatment, or build-orientation fatigue testing, check exposure against the leading assignee's claim scope before committing to a filing strategy.
Explore claims in EurekaWatch the mid-tier for consolidation signals
The gap between fifth place (6 records) and tenth place (2 records) suggests smaller filers may be acquisition or licensing targets rather than long-term independent competitors.
Track assignees in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee leads this dataset with 24 of the 77 records in scope, a clear margin ahead of fifth place at 6 records. The top 5 assignees together hold 79.2% of all records, and the top 10 hold 94.8%, meaning most of the technical ground is controlled by a small group rather than spread evenly. Anyone entering this space should expect to design around that leader's coverage rather than find an open field.
Filing peaked at 17 records in 2017 and had fallen to 8 by 2024, a -38% change from the 13 filed in 2021. That reads as a genuine cooling from the peak, but 2025 and 2026 counts are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months. It is safer to say activity has moderated from its 2017 high than to call the field currently declining.
Powder metallurgy (IPC class B22F) appears in 41.6% of the 77 records, additive manufacturing methods (B33Y) in 37.7%, and implant or prosthesis applications (A61F) in 31.2%. Non-ferrous metal treatment, welding/brazing, and alloy composition classes each cover meaningful minority shares. Because records often carry multiple classifications, these figures overlap and should each be read against the full 77-record total, not against each other.
The classification data shows heavier claim density in powder metallurgy and general additive manufacturing process control than in specific qualification protocols like build-orientation fatigue testing or non-destructive alpha-case verification. Co-assignee filing is also thin, with only 7 identified pairs across the dataset, suggesting limited cross-organisation collaboration on qualification-specific claims. These lighter-claimed branches are worth deeper freedom-to-operate review before assuming they are occupied.
US20190001437A1, covering in-situ gas jet impingement for solidification and phase transformation control during metal additive manufacturing, carries the highest citation count in this dataset at 56. High citation counts inside a searched corpus tend to favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate references, so this signals historical influence on how the field frames process control rather than current commercial dominance.
Research Titanium Additive Manufacturing Qualification in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole titanium additive manufacturing qualification 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.