CMP Slurries and Pads Patents: Who Leads, Trends 2026
- Filings have cooled since the 2022 peak of 133, with the latest full year running well below that mark — a maturing claim landscape rather than a growing one.
- Every tracked leading assignee shows 0 filings in the latest year, a pattern consistent with publication lag rather than a sudden exit from the field.
- B24B (grinding & polishing) covers 2,805 of 3,393 records, while C09G (polishing compositions proper) accounts for under a fifth — slurry chemistry is comparatively less crowded than pad and process hardware.
Filing growth compares 2021 (131 records) with 2024 (67) — 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 3,393 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this dataset covers
This landscape draws on 3,393 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026, filtered to documents that combine CMP slurry, polishing pad or chemical mechanical polishing consumable language in the title with claim-level detail on removal rate selectivity, abrasive particles, defectivity, pad grooving or endpoint detection. The IPC scope spans C09G1 (polishing compositions), B24B37 (polishing machines and processes) and H01L21 (semiconductor device processing), which means the corpus captures both the chemistry of slurries and the hardware and process side of planarization together.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one or two years in any trend line will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. Read the tail of the filing curve as incomplete data, not as a real drop-off in activity.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 3,393-family corpus: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how activity splits across the IPC subclasses that define the field.
A peak in 2022, then a decline
Filings rose from 85 in 2017 to a peak of 133 in 2022, then fell toward single digits by 2026 — a curve consistent with a technology area where the core claim space filled up mid-decade and new filing has since slowed, on top of the expected reporting lag in the final years shown.
Hardware and process claims outnumber slurry chemistry
B24B (grinding & polishing) and H01L (semiconductor devices) together dominate the corpus at 2,805 and 1,938 records respectively, while C09G (polishing compositions, the slurry formulation core) sits at 581 and C09K (materials for miscellaneous applications) at 502. B24D (grinding tools & abrasives, 893) and the smaller G01B and C23F counts round out a corpus weighted toward pad and process engineering rather than pure formulation chemistry.
Shares are the percentage of the 3,393 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on CMP Slurries and Pads with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cmp slurries and pads and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art in the field
Polishing pad, method for producing the same and method of fabricating semiconductor device using the same (US20220143778A1)
The application describes a polishing pad engineered to hold removal rate and polishing profile steady through a CMP process while limiting wafer defects, and to planarize layers of different materials to matching flatness when polished together. It ties pad performance, including removal rate selectivity, to measurable physical properties of the pad itself rather than relying only on direct polishing trials to qualify a design.Filed by ENPULSE CO., LTD., published 2022-05-12.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5893796A | Forming a transparent window in a polishing pad for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus | 1,113 |
| 2 | US5609511A | Polishing method | 694 |
| 3 | US5872633A | Methods and apparatus for detecting removal of thin film layers during planarization | 669 |
| 4 | US5807165A | Method of electrochemical mechanical planarization | 487 |
| 5 | US5911619A | Apparatus for electrochemical mechanical planarization | 425 |
| 6 | JP1990278822A | Chemical-mechanical polishing of electronic component board | 396 |
| 7 | US4793895A | In situ conductivity monitoring technique for chemical/mechanical planarization endpoint detection | 336 |
| 8 | US6039633A | Method and apparatus for mechanical and chemical-mechanical planarization of microelectronic-device substrate… | 328 |
| 9 | US6126532A | Polishing pads for a semiconductor substrate | 296 |
| 10 | US5514245A | Method for chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) of a semiconductor wafer to provide a planar surface free … | 279 |
Citation counts are drawn from documents indexed inside this corpus and skew toward older, foundational filings — treat them as a measure of influence on later filers, not 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 say about the field
Four patterns stand out once filing counts, IPC composition and citation data are put side by side.
The core claim space has already been staked out
Filing rose steadily through the late 2010s and peaked in 2022 before declining. Even allowing for publication lag understating the last one to two years, the shape points to a field where the obvious combinations of abrasive chemistry, pad structure and endpoint methods have largely been claimed.
Pad and process claims outweigh formulation claims nearly 5 to 1
The corpus is weighted toward polishing hardware, grooving and process control rather than abrasive chemistry itself. That imbalance is worth checking against any new slurry formulation program — the composition side of the field is comparatively less filed, which can mean either genuine white space or that formulation work is being protected as trade secret rather than patented.
The US is the primary battleground, Asia files close behind
United States filings outnumber the next largest office by roughly four to one, with EPO and WIPO/PCT routes close to each other and Japan, South Korea and Taiwan each in a similar band. A freedom-to-operate check that skips Japanese, Korean or Taiwanese national filings misses a meaningful share of the corpus.
Foundational patents from the 1990s still anchor citation counts
The most-cited records in this corpus date to the mid-to-late 1990s and cover pad windows, endpoint detection and electrochemical mechanical planarization. Their citation weight reflects decades of accumulated references, not current filing activity — useful for understanding lineage, less useful for gauging what is being actively claimed today.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cmp slurries and pads, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim positions
Assignee activity in this corpus is concentrated among a small group of established polishing-consumables and semiconductor equipment suppliers, with recent-year filings across that group all showing zero in the latest reported year — a pattern that likely reflects publication lag rather than an actual pause across the entire field simultaneously.
Reported momentum has flattened for every major filer
Applied Materials, Rohm and Haas Holdings, Cabot Microelectronics, Micron, Dow Global Technologies and Ebara Corporation all show zero filings in the most recent tracked year, with Applied Materials and Ebara both showing -100% YoY. Given the 18-month publication lag, this is best read as an incomplete latest year rather than a genuine industry-wide stop.
One long-standing co-assignee relationship dominates joint filing
Of the 10 identified co-assignee pairs, the Rohm and Haas Holdings and Dow Global Technologies pairing is far stronger than any other, consistent with a shared corporate lineage in polishing pad and slurry chemistry. Applied Materials appears in two of the remaining notable pairs alongside individual named inventors, suggesting inventor-driven joint filings rather than corporate joint ventures.
Filing strategy still centres on the US office
The receiving-office split shows the United States well ahead of Europe, PCT, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, though the latter three Asian offices sit close together in volume. Any assignee filing only through the USPTO and EPO is likely leaving Taiwanese and Korean coverage gaps, both significant manufacturing jurisdictions for CMP consumables.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Applied Materials, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Rohm and Haas Holdings | 0 | — |
| Cabot Microelectronics Corporation | 0 | — |
| Micron Technology, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Dow Global Technologies LLC | 0 | — |
| Ebara Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| 3M Innovative Properties Company | 0 | -100% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The filing and citation data point to a field where hardware and process claims are dense and slurry formulation is comparatively open — the next steps depend on which side of that line the reader's own work sits.
Map a specific formulation against the C09G cluster
With only 581 records in the polishing-compositions subclass against thousands in polishing hardware, a targeted novelty search on a specific abrasive chemistry or dispersant system is more likely to surface real white space than a general keyword scan.
Explore in EurekaCheck freedom-to-operate against the 1990s citation anchors
The highest-cited records in this corpus, including the transparent pad window and electrochemical planarization patents, are old enough that core claims may have expired, but their descendants are worth tracing before finalising a design.
Run a citation trace in EurekaVerify the latest-year drop before reading it as a slowdown
Every major assignee shows zero filings in the final tracked year; before concluding the field is cooling, pull the raw filing dates rather than publication dates to correct for the roughly 18-month lag.
Check filing dates in EurekaCommon questions about CMP slurry and pad patents
The dataset's leading assignees are a mix of established polishing-consumables suppliers and semiconductor equipment makers, including Applied Materials, Rohm and Haas Holdings, Cabot Microelectronics, Micron, Dow Global Technologies and Ebara Corporation. Rohm and Haas Holdings and Dow Global Technologies also form the strongest co-assignee pairing in the corpus at 117 shared families, reflecting their shared history in polishing pad and slurry chemistry. All of these leading assignees show zero filings in the most recent tracked year, which is more consistent with publication lag than an actual exit from the field.
Filing volume rose from 85 in 2017 to a peak of 133 in 2022, then declined toward single digits by 2026. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the final one to two years understate true activity, but the overall shape — a rise through the late 2010s followed by a plateau and decline — points to a field where core claim space is largely staked out rather than one still expanding. Anyone planning a filing program should treat 2022 as the likely high-water mark until later data fills in.
The clearest signal is the imbalance between polishing hardware and process claims (B24B, 2,805 records) and slurry composition claims (C09G, 581 records) — formulation chemistry is comparatively less filed than pad and process engineering. Within that, branches like in-situ defectivity metrology tied to pad wear, non-optical endpoint detection, and slurry recycling or waste-stream reclamation show thinner filing density than core removal-rate and grooving claims. That said, thin filing density can also mean a technique is protected as trade secret rather than patented, so a design-around search is still necessary before relying on open space.
US20220143778A1, filed by ENPULSE CO., LTD. and published 2022-05-12, covers a polishing pad designed to hold removal rate and polishing profile steady through a CMP process while limiting wafer defects and matching flatness across layers of different materials polished simultaneously. Its distinguishing feature is tying achievable removal rate selectivity to measurable physical properties of the pad, rather than qualifying pad designs only through direct polishing trials. Anyone developing a competing pad with similar property-based qualification methods should review this filing's claim scope closely.
The United States dominates with 1,502 filings in this corpus, roughly four times the next largest office. Europe (EPO, 375) and the WIPO/PCT route (359) are close to each other, while Japan, South Korea and Taiwan each sit in a similar band around 175-195 filings. Because Taiwan and South Korea are major manufacturing centres for CMP consumables and semiconductor fabrication, a freedom-to-operate review limited to the US and Europe risks missing enforceable rights in those jurisdictions.
Research CMP Slurries and Pads in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cmp slurries and pads 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.