Display Glass Substrate Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 96.6% concentration. The top five assignees account for 1,217 of the 1,260 records in scope — this field is claimed by a handful of firms, not a broad field of entrants.
- Filing has cooled from its 2017 peak. 2017 recorded 140 filings; the last complete comparison year, 2021 to 2024, shows a -17% change (59 to 49), though 2025-2026 figures are still filling in under publication lag.
- Composition claims dominate the class mix. C03C glass and enamel compositions appear on 72.5% of the 1,260 records, more than double the share of C03B manufacture and shaping claims (33.7%).
Filing growth compares 2021 (59 records) with 2024 (49) — 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 1,260 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape covers patent filings and publications touching display glass substrate manufacturing — glass compositions, fusion draw and forming processes, and the thermal and mechanical properties (thermal shrinkage, surface waviness, inclusion defects, sheet warp, annealing point) that determine whether a sheet is usable at commercial scale. The search string combines core substrate and process terms with defect and stability terms, so the dataset skews toward filings that describe both a material or process route and a measurable failure mode or performance target.
The scope runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off and spans 1,260 published records, tracked as patent families to avoid double-counting continuations and multi-jurisdiction filings of the same invention.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,260 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings peaked at 140 in 2017. The most recent complete comparison shows 2021 (59) to 2024 (49), a -17% change; 2025 and 2026 counts are understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
C03C (glass and enamel compositions) touches 72.5% of the 1,260 records and C03B (manufacture and shaping) touches 33.7%. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares are calculated against the full record total and add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,260 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Display Glass Substrate Manufacturing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about display glass substrate manufacturing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Alkali free glass (US20060003884A1, Asahi Glass Company, 2006-01-05)
The filing addresses compaction caused by heat treatment in alkali-free glass without materially raising the strain point, defining the ratio between the equilibrium density curve gradient across the annealing-to-strain-point range and the average linear expansion coefficient between 50 and 350 degrees C.Abstract text taken directly from the published filing.
View full filing| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20090220761A1 | Ion exchanged, fast cooled glasses | 444 |
| 2 | US20100000259A1 | Method of making shaped glass articles | 211 |
| 3 | US20120135848A1 | Fusion formed and ion exchanged glass-ceramics | 177 |
| 4 | US20070191207A1 | Glass compositions having high thermal and chemical stability and methods of making thereof | 164 |
| 5 | US20170008377A1 | Cold formed laminates | 137 |
| 6 | US8232218B2 | Ion exchanged, fast cooled glasses | 132 |
| 7 | US20160190640A1 | VITREOUS SOLID ELECTROLYTE SHEETS OF Li ION CONDUCTING SULFUR-BASED GLASS AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES, CELLS AN… | 127 |
| 8 | US20150232369A1 | Laser cutting of display glass compositions | 125 |
| 9 | US20040217455A1 | Wiring glass substrate and method of manufacturing the wiring glass substrate, conductive paste and semicondu… | 124 |
| 10 | US20170197869A1 | Chemically strengthenable lithium aluminosilicate glasses with inherent damage resistance | 123 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate them — read them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
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 data means for a filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the records are grouped by assignee, class and geography.
This is a five-player field, not a fragmented one
With 1,217 of 1,260 records sitting behind five assignees, new entrants are not filing into open ground — they are filing adjacent to a small set of dense composition and process portfolios. Freedom-to-operate work here should start with those five before looking anywhere else.
Composition claims, not forming equipment, hold the field
C03C glass and enamel composition claims outnumber C03B manufacture and shaping claims (33.7%) by more than two to one. A route that changes the forming process but keeps a claimed composition is unlikely to clear the densest prior art in this dataset.
Volume has eased off its 2017 peak, not collapsed
The peak year, 2017, recorded 140 filings; by the last comparison year with a complete count, 2024, that had settled to 49. Read this as a maturing claim base rather than a shrinking one — 2025-2026 numbers are still filling in under normal publication lag.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to display glass substrate manufacturing, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Corning Inc | KICZENSKI TIMOTHY J | 10 |
| Corning Inc | MAURO JOHN CHRISTOPHER | 8 |
| ELLISON ADAM JAMES | MAURO JOHN CHRISTOPHER | 7 |
| ELLISON ADAM JAMES | KICZENSKI TIMOTHY JAMES | 7 |
| Corning Inc | ELLISON ADAM JAMES | 6 |
| KICZENSKI TIMOTHY J | DICKINSON JR JAMES EDWARD | 6 |
| KICZENSKI TIMOTHY J | AITKEN BRUCE GARDINER | 6 |
| AITKEN BRUCE GARDINER | DICKINSON JR JAMES EDWARD | 6 |
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, the strongest linking a lead corporate assignee to individual named inventors — a pattern typical of large in-house glass science teams rather than cross-company joint filings.
Leading assignees and where they are pulling back
The ranking covers 100 companies across all 1,260 records. Momentum in the most recent year is thin across the board, consistent with publication lag rather than an actual pause in R&D.
One assignee anchors the field
The leading assignee's record count is more than five times the fifth-place figure (20), making this less a competitive race than a single dominant portfolio that everyone else files around.
A sharp drop after the leader
Fifth place holds 20 records and tenth place holds 5 — the tail thins out fast, so most of the 100 ranked companies hold only a handful of filings each rather than sustained programmes.
Recent-year counts are down across named filers
The leading assignee shows 2 filings in the latest year, down 91% year over year, and several other tracked assignees show zero in the latest year. This is consistent with publication lag understating 2025-2026 activity rather than a real pullback.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Corning Inc | 2 | -91% |
| PolyPlus Battery Co Inc | 0 | — |
| KICZENSKI TIMOTHY J | 0 | — |
| Asahi Glass Company (AGC Inc) | 0 | -100% |
| AvanStrate Inc | 0 | — |
| ELLISON ADAM JAMES | 0 | — |
| Corsam Technologies LLC | 0 | — |
| MAURO JOHN CHRISTOPHER | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next questions rather than a single answer.
Map claim boundaries around the leading portfolio
With one assignee holding 1,104 of 1,260 records, a freedom-to-operate review should start by mapping exactly which composition ranges and process steps its claims cover before scoping any new filing.
Explore claim scope in EurekaTest white-space branches against full claim text
The under-claimed sub-areas flagged here (waviness measurement, inclusion detection, warp compensation) are thin in this dataset but need a full claim-language check, not just a class-count check, before treating them as open.
Run a white space search in EurekaTrack the leading assignee's next filings closely
A 91% year-over-year drop at the leading assignee is more likely publication lag than a real slowdown; monitoring new publications from that filer over the next 12-18 months will clarify which it is.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
One assignee dominates this dataset, holding 1,104 of the 1,260 records in scope, compared with 20 records at fifth place and 5 at tenth. This means the field is best understood as one large portfolio surrounded by a long tail of much smaller filers rather than a competitive field of similarly sized players. Any competitive or freedom-to-operate analysis should treat that leading portfolio as the primary reference point.
Filing peaked in 2017 at 140 records and had eased to 49 by 2024, a -17% change from the 2021 figure of 59. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are lower still, but that reflects normal publication lag of roughly 18 months rather than an actual drop in R&D activity. The honest read is a claim base that has matured past its most active filing years, not one that has gone quiet.
Glass and enamel compositions (IPC class C03C) appear on 72.5% of the 1,260 records, making it by far the densest claim area, ahead of glass manufacture and shaping (C03B, 33.7%) and layered products and laminates (B32B, 18.7%). Because records often carry multiple IPC codes, these figures overlap rather than sum to 100%. A new filing that only changes forming equipment while reusing a claimed composition is filing into the most crowded part of the field.
US20060003884A1, assigned to Asahi Glass Company and published in 2006, claims an alkali-free glass defined by a specific ratio between the equilibrium density curve gradient across the annealing-to-strain-point temperature range and the average linear expansion coefficient measured between 50 and 350 degrees C. The stated aim is reducing compaction from heat treatment without materially raising the strain point. Anyone working on alkali-free compositions with similar thermal stability targets should check this ratio definition against their own formulation before assuming clearance.
Relative to the dense composition and forming claims, areas like in-line inclusion defect detection, surface waviness measurement methods, and sheet warp compensation for large-generation panels show thinner coverage in this dataset. That does not guarantee open claim space, since a full claim-language review is needed rather than a class-count check alone. It does mean these are reasonable starting points for a first search before committing R&D or filing resources to the densest, most-claimed compositional territory.
Research Display Glass Substrate Manufacturing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole display glass substrate manufacturing 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.