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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/die-to-wafer-bonding-and-collective-processing-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Wafer Bonding & 3D IntegrationDie to Wafer Bonding and Collective Processing Patents
- 47.2% of all 460 records sit with just five assignees, so the claim space at the top is already dense before you count the long tail of 67 ranked companies.
- Filing held steady, not slowed, with 2021 to 2024 up 3% — the field is not cooling, it is simply under-published for 2025 onward given the usual 18-month publication lag.
- 92.6% of records sit in H01L, but only 2.6% touch B32B layered products and 2.2% touch H05K assemblies — the packaging-adjacent claims are comparatively open.
460
Published Records
47%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+3%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (30 records) with 2024 (31) — 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 460 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Die to wafer bonding and collective processing covers the mechanics of aligning, placing and permanently joining individual dies onto a target wafer or carrier — the operations that sit between known-good-die sort and final packaging. The search scope here pairs bonding-method terms (die to wafer, chip to wafer, collective bonding) with the process constraints that actually determine yield: placement accuracy, known good die handling, carrier reconstitution, particle sensitivity, plasma activation and underfill-free joining.
460 published records fall inside this scope between 2015 and the mid-2026 cut-off. The set spans foundational chuck and carrier patents through to recent claims on plasma-activated surface prep, giving a working view of where the claim space is already occupied and where it is not.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Die to Wafer Bonding and Collective Processing 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
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 460 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing activity, 2017–2026
Annual publications ran from 18 in 2017 to a peak of 44 in 2023. The 2021-to-2024 span, the last stretch unaffected by publication lag, rose 3% (30 to 31) — read as steady, not slowing. Years from 2025 onward will fill in as later publications catch up.
IPC subclass composition
H01L (semiconductor devices) covers 92.6% of the 460 records, with H10W and H10P as the next-heaviest subclasses at 42.2% and 20.7%. Memory-specific manufacture (H10B) and general device claims (H10D) sit further down; layered-product (B32B), printed-circuit (H05K) and digital-memory (G11C) classes each cover under 3% of records, since a record can carry multiple classes these figures sum to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 460 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 Die to Wafer Bonding and Collective Processing covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Die to Wafer Bonding and Collective Processing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about die to wafer bonding and collective processing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Most-cited prior art and a representative filing
Representative record
EP3029725A1 — Chuck for the collective bonding of semiconductor dies
IMEC VZW
The chuck of the invention is a substrate comprising on one of its flat surfaces a number of films of carbon nanotubes deposited on die placement sites, grown so the CNTs attach at one end and extend outward. The films sit in recesses etched into the chuck surface, and the recesses may have different depths to compensate for height differences between dies during collective bonding.Filed by IMEC VZW, published 2016-06-08.
Highest-cited records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20120129301A1 | System comprising a semiconductor device and structure | 339 |
| 2 | US20190115277A1 | Package Structure for Heat Dissipation | 252 |
| 3 | US20110121366A1 | System comprising a semiconductor device and structure | 214 |
| 4 | US7521806B2 | Chip spanning connection | 210 |
| 5 | US20090267238A1 | Bridges for interconnecting interposers in multi-chip integrated circuits | 194 |
| 6 | US20210305202A1 | Reliable hybrid bonded apparatus | 181 |
| 7 | US11031285B2 | Diffusion barrier collar for interconnects | 179 |
| 8 | US7157372B1 | Coaxial through chip connection | 161 |
| 9 | US20180158749A1 | Package Structure for Heat Dissipation | 158 |
| 10 | US20110084314A1 | System comprising a semiconductor device and structure | 155 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and favour older filings; they are not a proxy for 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 Die to Wafer Bonding and Collective Processing 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
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 findings that shape where a new application is likely to clear prior art and where it will not.
Concentration
47.2% / top 5
of 460 records
The top of the field is already crowded
Five assignees hold 217 of the 460 records in scope, and the top ten hold 328, or 71.3%. A new filing on core die-placement or collective-bonding mechanics is landing on top of dense prior art from a small set of holders, not a fragmented field.
Top 5 = 217 records; Top 10 = 328 records
Filing momentum
+3%, 2021→2024
the last complete window
Steady, not declining
The 2021-to-2024 span rose from 30 to 31 filings, a modest but positive move after the 2023 peak of 44. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are not yet a reliable read on current momentum and should not be read as a slowdown.
2023 peak: 44 records
Class distribution
2.6% / 2.2%
B32B and H05K coverage
Packaging-adjacent classes are thin
H01L absorbs 92.6% of records and H10W another 42.2%, but layered-product claims (B32B) and printed-circuit assembly claims (H05K) each sit under 3% of the 460 records. That gap is where collective-processing claims tied to substrate lamination or board-level assembly have room to be written without colliding with the H01L core.
B32B: 12 records; H05K: 10 records
Co-filing pattern
23 shared filings
strongest co-assignee pair
A small cluster files jointly, most do not
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, with the strongest pairing sharing 23 filings. Joint filing is the exception here, not the norm, which means most of the ranked assignees are prosecuting independently rather than through joint ventures.
10 co-assignee pairs identified
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 die to wafer bonding and collective processing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Die to Wafer Bonding and Collective Processing 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 field is still open
The ranking spans 67 companies counted by record; the leader holds 98 records, fifth place 25, and tenth place 20 — a steep drop-off after the top few that flattens into a long tail.
Leader
98 records
single top assignee
One holder well ahead of the rest
The leading assignee holds 98 of the 460 records, nearly four times the fifth-place holder's 25. That gap suggests a portfolio built over years of continuation filings rather than a single breakthrough claim.
Fifth place: 25 records
Mid-field
20 records
tenth place
Ten holders account for most of the field
The top ten combined hold 328 records, 71.3% of the 460 in scope. Past that point the ranking spreads across a long tail of the remaining 57 companies in the 67-strong list, many with only a handful of filings each.
Top 10 combined: 328 records, 71.3%
Recent momentum
-50% to -83% YoY
latest-year activity, top holders
Momentum has cooled among the largest holders
Recent-year filings from the largest-portfolio holders are down sharply year over year, with several ranked assignees showing zero filings in the latest year. Given the publication lag, this likely reflects incomplete data for the newest year as much as any real pullback, but it means the leaderboard's top ranks are not the place to watch for fresh activity right now.
Several top holders at 0 filings, latest year
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Intel Corp | 1 | -50% |
| Tokyo Electron Ltd | 1 | -83% |
| TREZZA JOHN | 0 | — |
| Cufer Asset Ltd LLC | 0 | — |
| Monolithic 3D Inc | 0 | -100% |
| CUBIC WAFER | 0 | — |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| Wuhan Xinxin Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Die to Wafer Bonding and Collective Processing 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 next
The landscape points to a concentrated core and a thinner periphery — the next step is testing a specific claim against both.
Check a draft claim against the top holders
With 71.3% of records held by ten assignees, any new filing on core collective-bonding or placement-accuracy mechanics should be checked against that cluster's portfolios before drafting proceeds further.
Run a claim check in EurekaMap the white space in packaging-adjacent classes
B32B and H05K coverage sits under 3% of the 460 records each, well below the H01L core. That gap is worth a closer look before assuming it is unclaimed rather than simply unindexed.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the newest filings past the publication lag
2025 and 2026 figures will keep rising as later publications catch up. Set a watch on the leading assignees' recent activity rather than reading the current dip as a real slowdown.
Set up monitoring in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Die to Wafer Bonding and Collective Processing 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 on this landscape
One assignee leads with 98 of the 460 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-ranked holder at 25. The top five assignees combined hold 217 records, or 47.2% of the field, and the top ten hold 328, or 71.3%. Beyond the top ten the ranking spreads across a long tail drawn from a 67-company list, many holding only a handful of filings each, so most competitive activity outside the leaders is fragmented rather than concentrated in a second tier.
Not on the evidence available. The last fully comparable window, 2021 to 2024, shows filings rising 3%, from 30 to 31, after a 2023 peak of 44. Filings recorded for 2025 and 2026 look lower, but publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so those years are still filling in rather than showing a genuine drop. Treat any year-over-year comparison that includes 2025 or 2026 with caution.
EP3029725A1, filed by IMEC VZW, claims a chuck for collectively bonding semiconductor dies to a target wafer, where carbon nanotube films are grown on die placement sites and sit in etched recesses of varying depth to compensate for height differences between dies. It is specific to CNT-based compensation structures on the chuck surface, not to collective bonding chucks generally. A design using a different compensation mechanism, such as compliant polymer layers or mechanical shims, would sit outside this particular claim scope, though it should still be checked against the wider set of chuck and carrier patents in the dataset.
IPC composition shows H01L covering 92.6% of the 460 records, with H10W and H10P as the next-largest at 42.2% and 20.7%. Layered-product claims under B32B and printed-circuit assembly claims under H05K each cover only around 2 to 3% of records, marking them as comparatively open relative to the semiconductor-device core. That does not mean the space is unclaimed outright, but the filing density there is much lower than in the H01L core.
Mostly independently. The dataset identifies only 10 co-assignee pairs across all 460 records, and even the strongest pairing shares just 23 filings. That pattern suggests most of the ranked assignees, including the largest portfolio holders, are prosecuting their own filings rather than pursuing joint ventures or shared ownership structures, which matters when assessing freedom-to-operate risk from a single company versus a consortium.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Die to Wafer Bonding and Collective Processing 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 Die to Wafer Bonding and Collective Processing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole die to wafer bonding and collective processing 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.