Glass Texturing and Antiglare Etching Patents: Who Leads 2026
- One assignee dominates recent activity. Corning logged 2 filings in the most recent year while every other tracked assignee shows 0 — a lead with no immediate second mover.
- Filing growth is real but the base is small. Activity moved from 2 filings in 2021 to 3 in 2024, a +50% rise over that span, off a total pool of just 13 published records.
- Almost every filing touches glass chemistry. 92.3% of the 13 records carry a C03C glass-and-enamel-compositions class, while optical elements (G02B) and coatings (C09D) each sit at 38.5% — the etch chemistry is the anchor, optics and coatings are secondary claims.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 records) with 2024 (3) — 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.
A small, chemistry-anchored field with one visible leader
Glass texturing and antiglare etching sits at the intersection of surface chemistry and display optics: patents in this space describe how to roughen a glass surface to cut specular reflectance and sparkle without pushing haze or cleanability past acceptable limits. The dataset in scope covers 13 published records from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, filed across the United States, WIPO, Europe, India and Vietnam. The record count is modest, which means individual filings carry more weight in shaping the landscape than in a crowded art area.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so filings from 2025 and 2026 are still arriving in the record and should not be read as a slowdown. The most recent complete year for trend purposes is 2024.
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 13-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which technology classes the records actually sit in.
Filing trend
From a single filing in 2017, activity rose unevenly to a peak of 3 filings in 2023. The growth signal the dataset supports is the 2021-to-2024 span: 2 filings to 3, a +50% increase. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under publication lag and should not be read against that trend.
Technology composition
C03C (glass and enamel compositions) appears in 92.3% of the 13 records, confirming that most filings are anchored in etch or surface chemistry rather than pure optics. G02B (optical elements) and C09D (coatings) each appear in 38.5% of records, typically layered onto a chemistry claim rather than standing alone. C08J (polymer processing) and G02F (optical modulation) trail at 15.4% each — smaller, more specialised combinations. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to more than 100% of the record total.
Shares are the percentage of the 13 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Glass Texturing and Antiglare Etching with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about glass texturing and antiglare etching and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in the corpus
Antiglare articles (US20250208317A1)
An antiglare article with a textured primary surface that specifies first-surface absolute specular reflectance of 0.2% or less at 20° from normal, transmittance haze below 35% at normal incidence, sparkle below 3% on a 140 PPI device, distinctness of image below 35% at 20° from normal, and color separation below 0.6.Filed by Corning, published 2025-06-26 — the newest entrant among the most-cited records and the clearest statement of how tightly the optical targets are now specified.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20170233287A1 | Coated glass substrate or glass ceramic substrate with resistant multifunctional surface properties, method f… | 73 |
| 2 | WO2012118594A1 | Glass having antiglare surface with low display sparkle | 19 |
| 3 | US20210238085A1 | Coated glass substrate or glass ceramic substrate with resistant multifunctional surface properties, method f… | 5 |
| 4 | EP2681163A1 | Glass having antiglare surface with low display sparkle | 2 |
| 5 | US20250208317A1 | Antiglare articles | 1 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on later filings, not of current commercial relevance.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (5 of 5 rows); 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 mean for a filing decision
Three findings that shape where a new filer should and should not spend claim drafting effort in this space.
One assignee is actively filing; the rest have gone quiet
Recent-year momentum shows Corning with 2 filings in the latest year and every other tracked assignee — including Schott and several individual inventors — at 0. That is not evidence the field is closed, but it does mean a new entrant is not competing against multiple active filers in the same window.
Etch and surface chemistry, not optics, is the load-bearing claim
Nearly every record in scope carries a C03C classification. Optical performance claims (G02B) and coating claims (C09D) each show up in a little over a third of records, almost always as an addition to a chemistry claim rather than a substitute for one.
Activity is rising off a small base
Filings moved from 2 in 2021 to 3 in 2024, a +50% increase over that span, with a peak of 3 filings already reached in 2023. The absolute numbers are small enough that a single new filer materially changes the year-over-year picture.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to glass texturing and antiglare etching, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Corning Incorporated | ZHANG LU | 1 |
| Corning Incorporated | WEST JAMES ANDREW | 1 |
| Corning Incorporated | STEPHENS ALAN THOMAS II | 1 |
| Corning Incorporated | NGUYEN KELVIN | 1 |
| Corning Incorporated | HART SHANDON DEE | 1 |
| Corning Incorporated | GOLLIER JACQUES | 1 |
| ZHANG LU | WEST JAMES ANDREW | 1 |
| ZHANG LU | STEPHENS ALAN THOMAS II | 1 |
Ten co-assignee pairs are recorded, the strongest linking Corning with individual named inventors rather than with another corporate assignee — consistent with in-house inventor teams rather than cross-company collaboration.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranking below covers 8 companies and inventors, counted in records — the entire set the data endpoint returns for this search, not a top-50 or top-100 cut.
A single corporate assignee holds most of the ranked volume
The leading assignee accounts for 10 of the records in the ranking, against a fifth-place figure of just 1. That gap is wide enough that most of the citation-heavy, multifunctional-surface claims in this dataset trace back to one filer.
Everyone else is a single-filing entrant
Below the leader, the ranking drops quickly to single-digit and single-filing entities, including named individual inventors alongside a second corporate assignee. This is a long-tail structure, not a two-horse race.
Recent activity has narrowed to one filer
In the most recent tracked year, the leading assignee filed 2 records while every other ranked assignee filed 0. Whether that gap holds depends on filings still emerging under publication lag.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Corning Incorporated | 2 | — |
| Schott AG | 0 | — |
| ZHANG LU | 0 | — |
| WEST JAMES ANDREW | 0 | — |
| STEPHENS ALAN THOMAS II | 0 | — |
| NGUYEN KELVIN | 0 | — |
| HART SHANDON DEE | 0 | — |
| GOLLIER JACQUES | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated but small field. These are the next questions worth running before committing to a filing strategy.
Check freshness against publication lag
2025 and 2026 records are still arriving. Re-run the trend view closer to the next data cut before drawing conclusions about whether the leader's pace is holding.
Explore filing trends in EurekaMap the leader's full claim scope
With 10 of the ranked records, the leading assignee's claim boundaries — not just its most-cited filing — determine where a new entrant has room to draft around.
Run a claim-scope search in EurekaTest the under-claimed branches
Roughness distribution measurement and cleanability-durable coatings show thin coverage in this record set. A freedom-to-operate check on those branches specifically is a faster path than contesting the core etch chemistry claims.
Check white space in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
Within the 8 assignees covered by this dataset's ranking, one company leads clearly with 10 records against a fifth-place figure of just 1. That company also accounts for the only recent-year filing activity recorded, with 2 filings in the latest year while every other ranked assignee shows 0. This is a concentrated but small field, so the ranking should be read as directional rather than exhaustive of every filer worldwide.
The usable growth figure is +50% from 2021 (2 filings) to 2024 (3 filings), with a peak of 3 filings already reached in 2023. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so they should not yet be read as a decline. On the evidence available through 2024, the trend is upward off a small base.
This Corning filing, published mid-2025, describes an antiglare article with a textured primary surface meeting specific optical thresholds: specular reflectance at or below 0.2% at 20° from normal, transmittance haze under 35%, sparkle under 3% on a 140 PPI device, distinctness of image under 35%, and color separation under 0.6. It is the newest of the most-cited records in this dataset and the most tightly specified in terms of measurable optical performance. Anyone designing a competing antiglare surface should check their own measured values against these five thresholds directly.
Class-level data shows C03C glass and enamel compositions present in 92.3% of the 13 records, meaning most claim activity is chemistry-anchored. Coatings (C09D) and optical elements (G02B) each sit at 38.5%, while polymer processing (C08J) and optical modulation (G02F) trail at 15.4% each. The thinner-coverage combinations — polymer-glass composite texturing and roughness distribution measurement methods in particular — carry less prior art per the current record set.
The assignee ranking behind this dataset returns 8 companies and named inventors, counted in records, out of 13 total published records in scope. That is the complete ranking this data source returns, not a filtered top-50 or top-100 list. The distribution is a long tail: one dominant assignee, a second corporate assignee, and several individually named inventors each holding a small number of records.
Research Glass Texturing and Antiglare Etching in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole glass texturing and antiglare etching 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.