Gallium Oxide Substrate Patents: Leaders & Filing Trends 2026
- 53.7% of all 82 records in scope sit with just five assignees, and 86.6% sit with ten — a field with a narrow, defensible core rather than a wide-open one.
- Filings peaked in 2018 at 16 and the 2021-to-2024 span (the last complete years) shows a -58% pull-back, from 12 down to 5.
- H01L carries 81.7% of records but crystal growth (C30B) sits at only 26.8% — most of the claim pressure is on device structure, not on the melt-growth step itself.
Filing growth compares 2021 (12 records) with 2024 (5) — 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 82 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Gallium oxide (Ga2O3) is pursued as an ultrawide bandgap substrate material for power devices, positioned against silicon carbide and gallium nitride on theoretical figures of merit. This landscape tracks records that combine substrate-level claims — edge-defined film growth, melt growth methods, halide vapor phase routes, cleavage-plane handling — with device or doping claims built on top of them, across 82 records published between 2015 and the mid-2026 data cut-off.
The scope spans crystal growth technique, wafer processing, and the device architectures built on top of the finished substrate. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one or two years in any trend understate actual filing activity.
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 82 records: how filing activity has moved year on year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim weight. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, the composition shares add up to more than 100% of the record total — that is expected and does not indicate an error.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Activity climbed to a peak of 16 filings in 2018, then eased. The 2021-to-2024 span — the last years with a complete publication picture — shows a decline from 12 to 5 filings, a -58% move. 2025 and 2026 are still filling in and should not be read as a continuation of that decline.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
H01L (semiconductor devices) touches 81.7% of the 82 records, making it the dominant class by far. H10P and the two H10D/C30B classes each sit near or above a quarter of records, while welding/brazing (B23K), stone-working (B28D), coating (C23C) and dimensional measurement (G01B) each account for under 10% — these are the thinner, more specialised layers of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 82 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Gallium Oxide and Ultrawide Bandgap Substrates with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about gallium oxide and ultrawide bandgap substrates and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative claim
US20240139883A1 — Method for processing gallium oxide substrate
Provided is a practical method for processing a gallium oxide substrate that enables the substrate to be cut vertically and horizontally in a lattice shape, combining mechanical scribing along a planned cutting line parallel to the X direction with laser scribing along the Y direction, followed by a break step.Filed by Mitsuboshi Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd., published 2024-05-02.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20070134833A1 | Semiconductor element and method of making same | 55 |
| 2 | WO2013172227A1 | Monocrystalline gallium oxide and monocrystalline gallium oxide substrate | 19 |
| 3 | WO2019003861A1 | Oxide semiconductor device, and, method for manufacturing oxide semiconductor device | 17 |
| 4 | US20190148532A1 | Semiconductor device | 16 |
| 5 | US20190074367A1 | Semiconductor device | 16 |
| 6 | US20190267237A1 | Semiconductor device and method of manufacturing semiconductor device | 16 |
| 7 | US20100270548A1 | Semiconductor element and method of making same | 16 |
| 8 | CN111663181A | 一种氧化镓膜的制备方法及其应用 | 14 |
| 9 | US20200185541A1 | Oxide semiconductor device and method of manufacturing oxide semiconductor device | 12 |
| 10 | CN110809826A | 氧化物半导体装置以及氧化物半导体装置的制造方法 | 10 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favor older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations — read this as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial importance.
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 data means for a filing decision
Three findings that shape where a new filing has room to stand, and where it does not.
The core is already claimed by a small group
Just five assignees hold 53.7% of the 82 records in scope, and the top ten hold 86.6%. A newcomer filing on core substrate composition or basic device structure is filing into ground the leader and its closest peers have already covered.
Activity has pulled back from its 2018 peak
Filings peaked at 16 in 2018 and, across the last three complete years, fell from 12 to 5 — a -58% move. That does not necessarily mean interest has cooled; it may mean the field's early claimants have already staked the positions they need and are filing selectively now.
Device claims outnumber growth-method claims roughly 3-to-1
H01L (semiconductor devices) appears on 81.7% of records, while C30B (crystal growth) appears on only 26.8%. The heavier claim traffic is on how the substrate is used in a device, not on how the boule or crystal itself is grown — a signal for where design-around risk is highest.
The US carries most of the filing volume
The United States receives 52 of the tracked filings, well ahead of Europe (12), China (5) and WIPO/PCT (5). Any freedom-to-operate check for a US-market product needs to weight the US office filings heavily, but European and Chinese filings should not be treated as an afterthought given their combined volume.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to gallium oxide and ultrawide bandgap substrates, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape
24 companies appear in the ranking returned for this dataset — this is the complete ranking the data endpoint returns, not a top-50 or top-100 cut. The leader holds 15 records; by fifth place that falls to 6, and by tenth place to 4, describing a steep drop rather than a gradual taper.
One assignee holds a clear lead
The top-ranked assignee's 15 records are more than double the fifth-place total of 6, marking a genuine leadership gap rather than a crowded top tier.
A compact group of repeat filers
Between fifth and tenth place, record counts narrow from 6 to 4 — a tight band of assignees filing steadily rather than one company pulling far ahead of another mid-pack.
Co-filing is rare in this field
Only two co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, the strongest linking a major electronics manufacturer with a national technical university. Most filings here are single-assignee efforts rather than joint ventures.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Mitsubishi Electric Corp | 0 | — |
| POWER CUBESEMI INC | 0 | -100% |
| LG Innotek Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Mitsuboshi Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| FLOSFIA Inc. | 0 | — |
| Namiki Precision Jewel Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Fuji Electric Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| TDK Corp | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The figures above describe the shape of the field. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going deeper into the specific claims.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's portfolio
With 15 records concentrated in one assignee's hands, a claim chart against that portfolio should come before drafting a new substrate or device claim in this space.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaMap the under-claimed branches in detail
Cleavage-plane handling and doping uniformity show thinner claim density than the device-structure core — worth a closer look before assuming the space is open.
Run a white-space search in EurekaTrack filings as 2025–2026 data fills in
The apparent pull-back after 2018 is partly a publication-lag artifact. Revisit the trend once the most recent two years have caught up.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on gallium oxide substrate patents
The ranking returned for this dataset covers 24 companies, and the leader holds 15 of the 82 records in scope — more than double the fifth-place total of 6. That gap indicates a genuine leadership position rather than a crowded field of near-equal filers. The top five assignees combined hold 53.7% of all 82 records, and the top ten hold 86.6%, so most of the activity sits with a fairly small group even though 24 companies appear overall.
Filings peaked in 2018 at 16 in a year, and across the last three complete years — 2021 to 2024 — activity fell from 12 to 5 filings, a -58% move. Because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in this dataset are still incomplete and should not be read as confirming a continued decline. A more reliable read will only be possible once those years finish publishing.
H01L (semiconductor devices) is by far the dominant class, appearing on 81.7% of the 82 records in scope, followed by H10P at 36.6% and both H10D and C30B (crystal growth) at 26.8%. Smaller classes covering welding/brazing, stone-working, coating and dimensional measurement each touch under 10% of records. Because a single filing can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should be read individually against the 82-record total, not summed.
Relative to the dense device-structure claim activity under H01L, branches like cleavage-plane wafer handling, halide vapor phase scale-up, n-type doping uniformity, and thermal-conductivity-limit mitigation show thinner claim coverage. That does not guarantee those branches are unclaimed everywhere, but it does mean the claim density is lower than in the core device-structure space, making a focused freedom-to-operate check worthwhile before assuming either way. Co-filing is also rare in this field, with only two co-assignee pairs identified, suggesting most white-space opportunities would be pursued solo rather than through joint filings.
With the top five assignees holding 53.7% of all 82 records and the top ten holding 86.6%, this field shows a steep concentration curve — a clear leader well ahead of the pack, then a fast taper rather than a long gradual one. The leader's 15 records versus the tenth-place total of 4 illustrates that gap directly. For a new entrant, this means the highest-value core claims are likely already occupied, and differentiation is more realistic in the thinner sub-areas than in the device-structure core.
Research Gallium Oxide and Ultrawide Bandgap Substrates in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole gallium oxide and ultrawide bandgap substrates 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.