Lead Frame Copper Alloy Strip Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- 387 of 504 records sit in C22C alloy composition claims (76.8%), making bulk alloy chemistry the most heavily occupied filing ground in the field.
- One leader at 154 filings sits far ahead of a fifth-place holder at 49 and a tenth-place holder at 13 — a steep drop-off rather than a gradual tail.
- Filings fell 50% from 2021 to 2024 (8 to 4), the only span in the dataset treated as complete once publication lag is accounted for.
Filing growth compares 2021 (8 records) with 2024 (4) — 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.
What this landscape covers
Lead frame copper alloy strip sits at the intersection of bulk metallurgy and semiconductor packaging: claims here cover the copper alloy composition itself, the thermomechanical treatment that sets its strength-conductivity balance, and the surface finishing — plating, etching, solder wettability — that lets the strip function as a lead frame. This landscape draws on 504 published records filed between 2015 and 2026, indexed against a search string built around alloy composition and the process attributes (stress relaxation, bendability, solder wettability, etching uniformity, silver spot plating) that distinguish a workable lead frame strip from a generic copper alloy.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate real filing activity; 2024 is the last year in this dataset treated as complete.
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 504-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how those records distribute across IPC subclasses.
Filing activity, 2017-2026
Filings rose from 4 in 2017 to a peak of 28 in 2018, then eased. The only span treated as complete — 2021 to 2024 — shows filings falling from 8 to 4, a 50% decline; years beyond 2024 are still filling in as publications catch up with filing dates.
IPC subclass distribution
C22C (alloys) covers 76.8% of the 504 records and C22F (non-ferrous metal treatment) covers 56.7%, confirming that most claims target alloy composition and its heat-treatment history rather than downstream use. H01B (conductors), H01L (semiconductor devices) and H01R (connectors) mark the application layer, each present in under half of records; C25D (electroplating), H10W and B21B (rolling) are the smallest and most specific classes, each under 11% of records.
Shares are the percentage of the 504 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Lead Frame Copper Alloy Strip with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about lead frame copper alloy strip and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited records
Conductive material for connection parts which has excellent minute slide wear resistance (US20170283910A1)
A conductive material for connection parts includes a matrix, a Cu-Sn alloy covering layer with a Cu content of 20 to 70 at % and average thickness of 0.2 to 3.0 micrometres, and a Sn covering layer averaging 0.05 to 5.0 micrometres. The matrix is a copper alloy strip containing specified Cr and Zr, or specified Fe and P, or a Cu-Zn alloy strip with specified Zn content, with the Cu-Sn and Sn layers formed in that order on the matrix surface.Filed by Kobe Steel, published 2017-10-05.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20080224161A1 | Semiconductor Light Emitting Device and Multiple Lead Frame for Semiconductor Light Emitting Device | 89 |
| 2 | US20040079456A1 | Copper alloy containing cobalt, nickel and silicon | 85 |
| 3 | US6471792B1 | Stress relaxation resistant brass | 77 |
| 4 | US20080257581A1 | Terminal for engaging type connector | 58 |
| 5 | US7182823B2 | Copper alloy containing cobalt, nickel and silicon | 43 |
| 6 | WO2004005560A2 | Copper alloy containing cobalt, nickel, and silicon | 39 |
| 7 | US6132528A | Iron modified tin brass | 36 |
| 8 | US20080230269A1 | Crimp contact for an aluminum stranded wire, and cable end structure of an aluminum stranded wire having the … | 32 |
| 9 | US20060049493A1 | Lead frame and method of manufacturing the same | 30 |
| 10 | US5486244A | Process for improving the bend formability of copper alloys | 29 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and favour older filings; treat them as a signal of influence on later work, not of current commercial 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 numbers mean for a filing decision
Reading the composition and trend data together points to where claim space is full, where it is thinning, and where recent activity has gone quiet.
Alloy composition claims dominate
More than three in four records touch C22C, meaning most viable compositional variations around copper-cobalt-nickel-silicon, copper-zirconium-chromium and similar systems are already staked out in some form. New entrants competing on bulk chemistry alone are filing into dense prior art.
Heat treatment is the second-most claimed layer
Non-ferrous metal treatment claims — ageing, annealing, rolling schedules that set the strength-conductivity balance — appear in over half of records, running close behind composition. A composition claim paired with a distinct treatment sequence is a more defensible combination than either alone.
Filing pace has cooled from a 2018 peak
Activity peaked at 28 filings in 2018 and the last complete span, 2021 to 2024, shows a 50% decline. Recent-year momentum figures for the field's most active assignees show zero filings in the latest year across several of them — read cautiously given publication lag, but consistent with a maturing rather than expanding filing base.
Plating and finishing claims are comparatively thin
Electroplating and electroforming claims — the layer that governs solder wettability, silver spot plating and etching uniformity called out in the search itself — sit at just over one in ten records, far below the alloy and treatment layers.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to lead frame copper alloy strip, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is thinning
The ranked list covers 66 companies, counted in records. It is not a top-50 or top-100 cut — it is the full ranking the dataset returns — and the gap between its leader and its middle tier is steep.
One filer sits well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 154 records against 49 at fifth place and 13 at tenth — a much steeper drop than a gradually declining tail, indicating one company has built a substantially larger portfolio than any single competitor.
Filing partnerships cluster around a few firms
Ten co-assignee pairings appear in the dataset, with the strongest pair sharing 59 records and two further pairs sharing 32 and 13. This points to sustained joint development between specific corporate pairs rather than one-off collaborations.
Filing activity concentrates in the US and Europe
The United States (138) and the European Patent Office (129) receive the largest share of filings tracked here, ahead of Japan (64), Germany (24), Austria (22) and the WIPO PCT route (19), suggesting these are the jurisdictions where enforcement risk is highest for new entrants.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Mitsubishi Materials Corporation | 0 | — |
| Olin Corporation | 0 | — |
| Mitsubishi Shindoh Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| JX Nippon Mining & Metals Corporation | 0 | — |
| Wieland-Werke AG | 0 | — |
| Kobe Steel, Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Texas Instruments Incorporated | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to where claim space is dense and where it has room; the next step is applying that to a specific composition or process design.
Map a candidate composition against C22C prior art
Run a proposed alloy composition against the C22C and C22F claim set before drafting, given how densely both classes are already occupied.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaCheck freedom to operate in the US and EPO
Concentrate initial clearance work on the United States and EPO filings, the two largest receiving offices in this dataset, before extending to Japan or Germany.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaReview the leader's portfolio structure
Examine how the leading assignee's 154 records are split across composition, treatment and surface-finish claims to understand where its strongest blocking positions sit.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaCommon questions on lead frame copper alloy strip patents
One assignee leads the ranked field with 154 records, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 49 and the tenth-place holder at 13. This is a steep concentration at the top rather than a gradual tail, so due-diligence work on this technology should start with that leader's portfolio before moving down the ranking. The ranking covers 66 companies in total, counted by patent family, and is the complete list the dataset returns rather than a top-50 or top-100 cut.
The great majority of records claim alloy composition: C22C accounts for 76.8% of the 504 records in scope, covering systems such as copper-cobalt-nickel-silicon and copper-zirconium-chromium formulations. C22F, non-ferrous metal treatment, follows at 56.7%, covering the ageing and rolling schedules that set strength-conductivity balance. Downstream application classes — semiconductor devices, connectors, conductors — appear less often, and surface-finish claims under C25D sit at just 10.5%, marking it as comparatively less crowded.
Filings peaked at 28 in 2018 and the only span in this dataset that can be treated as complete, 2021 to 2024, shows a 50% decline from 8 to 4. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, years after 2024 are still filling in and should not be read as a stop in activity. The honest read is a cooling from a 2018 peak, not a currently accelerating field.
US20170283910A1, filed by Kobe Steel, claims a conductive material for connection parts built on a copper alloy or copper-zinc alloy matrix, with a Cu-Sn alloy covering layer of specified composition and thickness followed by a Sn covering layer, aimed at minute slide wear resistance. It matters because the layered structure and the compositional ranges for both covering layers and the underlying matrix define a specific combination that others working on solder-wettable, wear-resistant connector surfaces need to check against before finalising their own layer stack.
The comparatively thin classes point to the gaps: C25D (electroplating and electroforming) sits at only 10.5% of the 504 records, and finer process controls such as etching uniformity across strip width or silver spot plating consistency are mentioned in the search criteria but not heavily claimed relative to bulk alloy composition. A first claim in this space would likely combine a specific plating or etching process parameter with a defined alloy substrate rather than claiming either alone, since the substrate layer is already densely claimed.
Research Lead Frame Copper Alloy Strip in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole lead frame copper alloy strip 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.