Skip to content
PatentWorld
Chapter 23

3D Printing & Additive Manufacturing

Additive manufacturing patenting trends, 1990–2025

Having examined the geographic mechanics of innovation in the previous act, this chapter opens ACT 6 with 3D printing, a manufacturing technology whose patent landscape illustrates how foundational patent expirations coincide with broadened participation across an entire field and whose earliest production-grade applications emerged in aerospace before spreading to consumer and industrial markets.

3D printing, more formally known as additive manufacturing (AM), builds objects layer by layer from digital models — a fundamental departure from the subtractive machining and formative molding that have dominated manufacturing for centuries. This chapter examines the patent landscape of AM technologies, tracing their evolution from early stereolithography systems through the desktop printing boom to today's production-grade metal AM systems.

Growth Trajectory

Figure 1

3D Printing Patent Filings Grew 12x From 235 in 2009 to 2,899 in 2024, With Acceleration Coinciding With FDM Patent Expiration

Annual count of utility patents classified under additive manufacturing CPC codes (B33Y, B29C64, B22F10), tracking the growth trajectory of 3D printing patenting.

Annual count and share of utility patents classified under additive manufacturing CPC codes, 1990–2025. The sharp acceleration after 2009 coincides with the expiration of Stratasys's foundational FDM patent, a period also marked by falling hardware costs and new market entrants. Grant year shown. Application dates are typically 2–3 years earlier.
The growth in 3D printing patents is associated with the broader expansion of additive manufacturing, coinciding with patent expirations, falling hardware costs, and expanding material capabilities.
Figure 2

AM's Share of Total Patents Rose From 0.14% in 2009 to 0.89% in 2024, Signaling a Manufacturing R&D Reallocation

3D printing patents as a percentage of all utility patents, showing the growing allocation of inventive effort toward additive manufacturing.

Percentage of all utility patents classified under additive manufacturing CPC codes. The upward trend indicates that AM patenting growth reflects a real shift in manufacturing innovation priorities, not merely growth tracking the overall patent system.
The growing share of AM patents suggests that additive manufacturing is capturing an increasing fraction of total manufacturing R&D effort, consistent with its expanding role in production workflows.
Figure 3

Incumbents Hold 84% of Patents in 2024, With Entrants Contributing ~20% of Growth After the 2009 FDM Expiration

Annual patent counts decomposed by entrants (first patent in domain that year) versus incumbents.

Entrants are assignees filing their first 3D printing patent in a given year. Incumbents had at least one prior-year patent. Grant year shown.

AM Subfields

Figure 4

AM Processes and Polymer AM Each at 19% of Filings; Metal AM (9%) and Auxiliary Ops (6%) Growing Fast

Patent counts by AM subfield (processes, equipment, materials, polymer AM, metal AM) over time, based on CPC group codes within B33Y, B29C64, and B22F10.

Patent counts by additive manufacturing subfield over time. AM processes and polymer AM (B29C64) represent the largest established categories, while metal AM (B22F10) has grown rapidly since 2015, reflecting the technology's expansion into production-grade applications in aerospace and medical devices.
The bifurcation between polymer and metal AM reflects two distinct technology trajectories: polymer AM serving prototyping and consumer markets, while metal AM targets high-value production applications.

Leading Organizations

Figure 5

HP (908 Patents) and GE (884) Lead AM Volume, Followed by Stratasys, Boeing, 3D Systems, and Xerox

Organizations ranked by total 3D printing patent count, showing concentration among AM specialists and industrial conglomerates.

Organizations ranked by total additive manufacturing patents. The leadership of HP and GE alongside AM-native firms (Stratasys, 3D Systems) and aerospace companies (Boeing) reflects the technology's dual trajectory as both a standalone industry and an embedded manufacturing capability.
The co-existence of AM specialists and diversified industrial firms at the top of the patent rankings reflects additive manufacturing's dual identity: a standalone technology sector and an embedded capability within broader manufacturing systems.

Top Inventors

Figure 6

Top AM Inventor Kia Silverbrook Holds 179 Patents, Reflecting Deep Expertise in Process Innovation

Primary inventors ranked by total 3D printing patent count, illustrating the concentration of AM inventive output among key individuals.

Primary inventors ranked by total additive manufacturing patents. The distribution exhibits pronounced skewness, with the most prolific inventors typically affiliated with AM-native firms involved in foundational process and materials innovations.
The concentration of AM patents among inventors at pioneer firms reflects the deep, specialized expertise required for additive manufacturing process development, where material science, thermal dynamics, and precision engineering intersect.

Geographic Distribution

Figure 7

The United States Accounts for 62% of AM Patents (15,517 Total), With Germany, Japan, and China as Major Contributors

Countries ranked by total 3D printing patents based on primary inventor location, showing the geographic distribution of AM innovation.

Countries ranked by total additive manufacturing patents based on primary inventor location. The United States maintains the leading position, while the strong presence of Germany and Japan reflects their advanced manufacturing traditions, and China's growing share indicates rapid expansion of AM capabilities.
The geographic distribution of AM patents reflects the alignment between additive manufacturing innovation and existing manufacturing strength, with the United States, Germany, and Japan — countries with established industrial bases — accounting for the majority of AM patenting.
Figure 8

California (3,589), Massachusetts (1,246), and New York (1,163) Lead US 3D Printing Patenting

US states ranked by total 3D printing patents based on primary inventor location, highlighting geographic clustering of AM innovation.

US states ranked by total additive manufacturing patents based on primary inventor location. The geographic clustering reflects the locations of major AM firms and their proximity to manufacturing customer bases in aerospace, medical devices, and automotive.
The clustering of AM patents in manufacturing-intensive states contrasts with the Silicon Valley concentration seen in software-oriented technology domains, reflecting additive manufacturing's ties to physical production infrastructure.

Quality Indicators

Figure 9

AM Patent Technology Scope Remained Stable Around 4.5 CPC Subclasses (1990–2024), Reflecting Consistent Interdisciplinarity

Average claims, backward citations, and technology scope (CPC subclasses) for 3D printing patents by year, measuring quality trends.

Average claims, backward citations, and technology scope for additive manufacturing patents by year. The stable technology scope near 4.5 CPC subclasses indicates that AM patents have consistently spanned multiple technology areas, reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of systems that integrate materials science, mechanical engineering, and software control.
The consistently broad technology scope of AM patents reflects the interdisciplinary nature of additive manufacturing, which spans materials, process control, equipment design, and software.
Figure 10

3D Printing Top-Decile Citation Share Declined From 31.3% in 1990 to 13.4% by 2020 as the Field Expanded

Share of domain patents in the top decile of system-wide forward citations by grant year × CPC section.

Top decile computed relative to all utility patents in the same grant year and primary CPC section. Rising share indicates domain quality outpacing the system; falling share indicates dilution.

AM Patenting Strategies

The leading AM patent holders pursue markedly different strategies. Some firms concentrate on process innovations, while others emphasize equipment design, materials formulation, or application-specific AM products. A comparison of AM subfield portfolios across major holders reveals where each organization concentrates its inventive effort and identifies areas of strategic differentiation.

AM as a Cross-Domain Technology

A defining characteristic of additive manufacturing is its application across diverse industries. By tracking how frequently AM-classified patents also carry CPC codes from non-AM technology areas, it is possible to measure the spread of 3D printing into aerospace, healthcare, automotive, and other domains.

Figure 11

AM Patent Co-Occurrence With Healthcare (Section A) Reached 17.49% in 2024, Indicating Expanding Real-World Applications

Percentage of AM patents co-classified with other CPC sections, measuring 3D printing's diffusion into healthcare, aerospace, and other domains.

Percentage of additive manufacturing patents co-classified with each non-AM CPC section. Rising lines indicate AM diffusing into that sector. The increasing co-occurrence with Human Necessities (Section A, encompassing medical devices) and Performing Operations (Section B, encompassing machining and manufacturing) reflects AM's expanding production applications.
The co-occurrence of AM patents with medical device and aerospace CPC codes reflects additive manufacturing's growing role in producing end-use parts for high-value applications, moving beyond its origins as a prototyping technology.

Team Structure in AM Innovation

AM patents have generally involved larger inventor teams compared to non-AM patents, reflecting the multidisciplinary nature of additive manufacturing systems that integrate materials science, process engineering, and software control. While the gap narrowed and briefly reversed during 2016–2018, it has widened again in recent years, highlighting the growing collaborative demands of AM innovation.

Figure 12

AM Patent Teams Average 3.3 Inventors per Patent in 2024, Exceeding the 3.2 Non-AM Average

Average inventors per patent for 3D printing versus non-3D printing utility patents by year, showing the complexity gap between the two categories.

Average number of inventors per patent for additive manufacturing versus non-AM utility patents by year. AM patents have generally involved larger teams, though the gap narrowed and briefly reversed during 2016–2018 before widening again in recent years, reflecting the evolving multidisciplinary demands of additive manufacturing.
The team size gap between AM and non-AM patents reflects the systems-level complexity of additive manufacturing, which requires concurrent innovation across materials, processes, equipment, and software.
Figure 13

Corporate Assignees Account for 98% of AM Patents, Though University Contributions Have Grown in Absolute Terms

Distribution of 3D printing patents by assignee type (corporate, university, government, individual) over time, showing the evolving institutional composition.

Distribution of additive manufacturing patent assignees by type over time. Corporate assignees have consistently dominated, with their share intensifying as industrial firms entered the field after 2012. University AM patenting has grown in absolute terms, reflecting the expansion of academic AM research programs.
The dominance of corporate assignees in AM patenting reflects the capital-intensive nature of additive manufacturing R&D, which requires access to expensive equipment, specialized materials, and production-scale testing facilities.

Analytical Deep Dives

For metric definitions and cross-domain comparisons, see the ACT 6 Overview.

Figure 14

Top-4 Concentration in 3D Printing Patents Peaked at 36% in 2005 Before Declining to 11% by 2024

Share of annual domain patents held by the four largest organizations, measuring organizational concentration in 3D printing patenting.

CR4 (four-firm concentration ratio) computed as the sum of the top 4 organizations' annual patent counts divided by total domain patents. The 2005 peak reflects Micron Technology's dominance during its semiconductor-adjacent AM activity. Post-2009, the domain fragmented as FDM patent expirations were followed by widespread entry.
The declining concentration ratio suggests that 3D printing patenting has become increasingly accessible, with the top 4 organizations accounting for a diminishing share of total activity despite their absolute patent counts increasing.
Figure 15

3D Printing Subfield Diversity Remained High Throughout Its History, Ranging From 0.80 to 0.95

Normalized Shannon entropy of subfield patent distributions, measuring how evenly inventive activity is spread across 3D printing subfields.

Normalized Shannon entropy (H/ln(N)) ranges from 0 (all activity in one subfield) to 1 (perfectly even distribution). Values consistently above 0.85 indicate that AM innovation has been broadly distributed across equipment, processes, materials, products, and data handling subfields, with a brief dip to 0.80 in 2014 as polymer AM expanded.
Unlike domains such as AI, which diversified substantially from a narrow base, 3D printing has maintained broad subfield diversity throughout its history, suggesting that the technology has always required simultaneous advances across multiple technical dimensions.
Figure 16

Later Entrants Patent Faster: 2010s Cohort Averages 11.2 Patents/Year versus 8.3 for 1990s Entrants

Mean patents per active year for top organizations grouped by the decade in which they first filed a 3D printing patent.

Patenting velocity is computed as total domain patents divided by active career span (last year minus first year plus one) for each organization, then averaged by entry decade cohort. Only cohorts with three or more organizations are shown. The increasing velocity suggests that later entrants are more productive per year of activity.
The rising velocity across entry cohorts is consistent with the technology maturing and becoming more accessible: later entrants can build on established knowledge and standardized processes rather than investing in foundational R&D.

Having examined the patent landscape of additive manufacturing, the following chapters explore other technology domains where similar patterns of growth, organizational competition, and cross-domain diffusion are unfolding. The manufacturing innovation dynamics documented here connect to the broader analysis in Patent Fields, while organizational strategies are examined further in Assignee Composition.

Figure 17

3D Printing Filings Peaked in 2019 at 2,799 While Grants Continued Rising to 2,899 in 2024

Annual patent filings versus grants for 3D printing, showing the multi-year lag between application and issuance.

The divergence between filing and grant curves reflects the USPTO examination pipeline. Filings peaked in 2019 and have since declined, but grants continued rising through 2024 as the backlog of applications was processed.

Data coverage: January 1976 through September 2025. All 2025 figures reflect partial-year data.