Integrated Laser Manufacturing Process Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Flat filing curve. activity peaked at 4 families in 2022 and has not broken higher since — this is a narrow, still-open field rather than a crowded one.
- No dominant recent filer. every tracked assignee shows zero filings in the latest year, so momentum has stalled across the board rather than concentrating in one lab.
- Filing is US/EPO-heavy. 18 US and 17 EPO filings dwarf China's 3, suggesting the commercial center of gravity for this process work still sits in North America and Europe.
What this dataset covers
This landscape tracks 46 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine integrated, heterogeneous or on-chip laser claims with process-specific language: wafer bonding, quantum dot epitaxy, flip-chip assembly, and general manufacturing process claims, filtered against core laser and semiconductor IPC classes. It is a narrow, process-focused slice of the broader integrated photonics field rather than a survey of laser devices generally.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025-2026 figures in any trend line understate real activity — recent applications are still working through the pipeline.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 46 families: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A flat curve, not a growing one
Filings rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 4 in 2022, then the midpoint check shows no clear acceleration afterward. Read this as a technology area with steady, low-volume interest rather than a race to file.
Concentrated in H01S, with process spillover
Every record touches H01S (lasers and stimulated emission), the anchor class for this search. Secondary weight sits in G02B (optical elements), with smaller counts in H01L (semiconductor devices), G01S and H04B, plus a handful in metal casting and metal treatment classes — evidence that some filers are protecting the assembly and packaging steps, not just the optical device itself.
Shares are the percentage of the 46 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Integrated Laser Manufacturing Process with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about integrated laser manufacturing process and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
Integrated laser driver circuit for switching a pulse current for a laser diode (US11936159B2, IC-HAUS GMBH, 2024-03-19)
The patent describes an integrated laser driver circuit built from parallel sub-switching units, each pulsing its own partial current and each carrying its own integrated energy accumulator to supply the switching energy, so the combined outputs form the total pulse current delivered to the laser diode.Claims center on circuit architecture for pulse-current generation, not on the optical or epitaxial structure of the laser itself.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4318058A | Semiconductor diode laser array | 237 |
| 2 | US5835514A | Laser-based controlled-intensity light source using reflection from a convex surface and method of making same | 94 |
| 3 | US5809050A | Integrated controlled intensity laser-based light source using diffraction, scattering and transmission | 81 |
| 4 | US5771254A | Integrated controlled intensity laser-based light source | 65 |
| 5 | US5084894A | Optical semiconductor device | 48 |
| 6 | US5761229A | Integrated controlled intensity laser-based light source | 45 |
| 7 | US5764842A | Semiconductor guided-wave optical device and method of fabricating thereof | 44 |
| 8 | US5208878A | Monolithically integrated laser-diode-waveguide combination | 40 |
| 9 | EP0665446A2 | Light beam scanner and integrated laser arrangement used for the scanner | 35 |
| 10 | EP0786838A2 | Laser based light source using diffraction, scattering or transmission | 32 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to be cited — treat this table as a map of influential prior art, not of current filing leadership.
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 →Reading the trend line and the citation base
The filing history and the most-cited prior art tell different parts of the same story: a technology that has never surged, sitting on top of some genuinely foundational device patents.
Volume has stayed low throughout
A peak of just 4 families in a single year, against a total of 46 across more than a decade, points to a specialised process niche rather than a race that any single filer is winning on volume.
Filing is Western-centered
US and European receiving offices together account for the large majority of filings, with China, India, Japan and PCT filings each in single digits. Freedom-to-operate work should prioritize US and EP prosecution history first.
The most-cited art predates the current wave
The most-cited record in this corpus is a foundational semiconductor diode laser array patent, with the next four most-cited also from the 1990s. High citation counts here mark influence on the field, not current claim risk.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to integrated laser manufacturing process, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds filings, and where the gate sits
No assignee in this dataset shows filings in the most recent tracked year — recent-year momentum is flat across every party checked. That makes this a field defined more by who filed historically than by who is actively pushing new claims right now.
Momentum has stalled, not shifted
Every assignee checked for recent-year activity — spanning corporate labs and specialist optics firms — shows zero filings in the latest year. This is not one company overtaking another; it is the whole tracked set going quiet at once, likely reflecting the 18-month publication lag as much as any real pullback.
Filing strategy leans Western
With US and EPO offices absorbing the bulk of filings and China, India and Japan each in single digits, assignees pursuing global coverage in this space have so far treated North America and Europe as the priority jurisdictions.
A small, specialised field
At 46 total families across more than a decade, this is a tightly scoped technology area. New entrants are not competing against thousands of prior filings — but the small base also means each individual grant carries more relative weight.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Hewlett-Packard Company | 0 | — |
| Nippon Koshin Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Optical Measurement Technology Development Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| NEC Corporation | 0 | — |
| Compontek Pte. Ltd. | 0 | — |
| GM Global Technology Operations LLC | 0 | — |
| Guangzhou Zhongshan New Materials Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| ZEN TECH LTD | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
The trend and assignee data point to specific next checks rather than a single conclusion.
Check the packaging and assembly branches
Secondary IPC weight in metal casting and metal treatment suggests some filers are protecting the mechanical and thermal packaging around the laser die, not just the optical design. This is worth a dedicated search.
Explore packaging claims in EurekaWatch for the publication-lag catch-up
Zero latest-year filings across all tracked assignees is partly an artefact of the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication. Re-check this trend in six to twelve months before concluding the field has cooled.
Set a monitoring alert in EurekaMap citation leaders against current claims
The most-cited records date from the 1990s. Confirming which of their claims have expired versus which descendants remain in force is a prerequisite for any freedom-to-operate opinion in this space.
Run a citation analysis in EurekaCommon questions about integrated laser manufacturing process patents
This dataset tracks 46 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine integrated, heterogeneous or on-chip laser claims with specific process language such as wafer bonding, quantum dot epitaxy or flip-chip assembly. That is a small, specialised corpus compared to broader laser or semiconductor device categories. The count should be read as this specific process-focused slice, not as every laser patent in existence.
The dataset does not show a single dominant recent filer; every tracked assignee recorded zero filings in the latest year, meaning historical activity is spread across several corporate and specialist parties rather than concentrated at the top. Filing activity peaked at 4 families in 2022 and has not clearly re-accelerated since. Anyone assessing competitive position here should look at the full assignee ranking rather than assume one company controls the space.
Based on the tracked trend, filing activity is flat rather than growing: it rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 4 in 2022, and the midpoint comparison shows no clear upward trajectory beyond that. Recent years likely understate true activity because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so applications filed in 2024-2026 may not yet be visible. The honest read is a steady, low-volume field rather than either a boom or a clear decline.
The United States and the European Patent Office dominate this dataset, with 18 and 17 filings respectively, far ahead of China, India, Japan and WIPO PCT filings, each in single digits. This suggests the commercial and R&D center of gravity for integrated laser manufacturing processes currently sits in North America and Europe. Freedom-to-operate and prosecution strategy work should prioritize US and EP filings first, with other jurisdictions as secondary checks.
US11936159B2, assigned to IC-HAUS GMBH, claims an integrated laser driver circuit that generates a pulse current using multiple parallel sub-switching units, each with its own integrated energy accumulator supplying switching energy. It is a circuit-architecture patent focused on how pulse current is generated and distributed, not a claim over the laser diode's optical or epitaxial structure. Designers working on laser driver electronics with a similar parallel-switching topology should review its claims closely, but the patent does not appear to reach into wafer bonding, epitaxy or optical packaging work.
Research Integrated Laser Manufacturing Process in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole integrated laser manufacturing process 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.