OLED Display Materials Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Remain 2026
- Filings have declined since the 2018 peak of 147. the midpoint year 2022 recorded just 30, and the trend has not recovered — this is a maturing claim landscape, not a growing one.
- Zero recent-year momentum across every top assignee. the largest filers, including BOE Technology and LG Display, show 0 filings in the latest tracked year, consistent with the ~18-month publication lag rather than a real pullback.
- United States dominates receiving offices with 534 filings. more than triple the EPO total of 159, meaning US prosecution and prior art carries outsized weight in freedom-to-operate work here.
What the OLED materials and devices patent record shows
The dataset covers 943 patent families published between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off, drawn from filings that combine OLED display or panel claims with specific technical hooks: emitter materials, lifetime degradation, encapsulation barriers, TFT backplanes and color gamut control. Filing activity peaked in 2018 at 147 and has trended down since, with the midpoint year 2022 at only 30. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the final one or two years in any chart will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be.
Technology composition skews heavily toward core semiconductor device claims (H01L, 905 records) and organic-semiconductor-specific claims (H10K, 459), with smaller but material clusters in display drive circuits (G09G), heating/lighting circuits (H05B), and the organometallic emitter chemistry that underpins phosphorescent and TADF materials (C07F, C09K). That spread indicates the field is not a single narrow claim class but a stack: chemistry, backplane electronics, and display control are each independently contestable.
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
The two views below cut the same 943-family dataset by year and by IPC subclass, showing both the trajectory of filing activity and where the claim density actually sits within the OLED stack.
Annual filings, 2017–2026
Filings ran at 108 in 2017, rose to a peak of 147 in 2018, then declined through the following years to just 30 at the 2022 midpoint, with the final years understated by publication lag.
IPC subclass distribution
H01L (905) and H10K (459) dominate, confirming that most contested claim territory is semiconductor device structure and organic-semiconductor-specific implementation rather than the smaller display-control (G09G, 103) or optics (G02B, 39) branches.
Shares are the percentage of the 943 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on OLED Display Materials and Devices with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about oled display materials and devices and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited prior art and a representative filing
US20180138246A1 — Touch System, Active Matrix Organic Light Emitting Diode Panel, and Display Driving Method
A touch system includes a glass cover, a polarizer, packaging glass, a thin film transistor (TFT) backplane, a transmitter (TX) circuit, and a receiver (RX) circuit, where the glass cover, the polarizer, the packaging glass, and the TFT backplane are fitted in sequence from top to bottom, and the TX circuit is located on the TFT backplane, and the RX circuit is located on the packaging glass. The TX circuit and the RX circuit are respectively disposed on the TFT backplane and the packaging glass. Therefore, a quantity of stacked layers of the touch control system is reduced, achieving a thinner and lighter active matrix organic light emitting panel.Filed by Honor Device Co., Ltd., published 2018-05-17.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2013079217A1 | display | 1,108 |
| 2 | US20040113875A1 | Color oled display with improved power efficiency | 341 |
| 3 | WO2012172482A1 | Metal complexes comprising azabenzimidazole carbene ligands and the use thereof in oleds | 215 |
| 4 | US20040178743A1 | Color OLED display system having improved performance | 198 |
| 5 | US7133032B2 | OLED display and touch screen | 197 |
| 6 | US7230594B2 | Color OLED display with improved power efficiency | 192 |
| 7 | US20150008419A1 | Microcavity OLED device with narrow band phosphorescent emitters | 168 |
| 8 | US20010026124A1 | Light extraction from color changing medium layers in organic light emitting diode devices | 165 |
| 9 | US20110233528A1 | Novel OLED display architecture | 163 |
| 10 | US7023013B2 | Array of light-emitting OLED microcavity pixels | 156 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus; treat this table as a map of foundational influence, not of current commercial relevance.
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 filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are put next to each other: a shrinking filing rate, an office concentration that shapes where prior art actually lives, and a claim stack that spans chemistry through display control.
Activity has cooled since 2018
The peak year of 147 filings in 2018 has not been matched since; by the 2022 midpoint, annual filings had fallen to 30. Combined with the 18-month publication lag, this points to a field where the core claim territory was staked out earlier in the period.
US filings set the prior-art baseline
With 534 US-office records against 159 at the EPO and 74 in China, freedom-to-operate and invalidity searches in this space will surface US prior art disproportionately often, even for products destined for other markets.
Chemistry and device structure both matter
Nearly all records touch core semiconductor device claims (H01L), but a large secondary cluster in organic-semiconductor-specific claims (H10K) plus smaller organometallic chemistry clusters (C07F, C09K) means emitter material claims sit alongside device architecture claims as separate barriers to entry.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to oled display materials and devices, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim territory
Display panel manufacturers dominate the assignee ranking, with several Chinese entities tied together through co-assignee filings that suggest joint ventures or shared fabs rather than independent invention.
BOE's filings run through affiliated entities
The strongest co-assignee links in the dataset connect BOE Technology Group with regional affiliates such as Ordos Yuansheng Optoelectronics and Hefei Xinsheng Optoelectronics, each at 13 shared filings, indicating coordinated prosecution across a corporate group rather than isolated inventors.
Kodak's emitter chemistry legacy persists
Eastman Kodak's pairing with a named inventor at 8 shared filings reflects the company's historical role in OLED emitter chemistry, much of which still surfaces as cited prior art rather than active recent filing.
No assignee shows current-year filings
Every top assignee, including BOE, Universal Display, Wuhan/Shenzhen China Star and LG Display, records zero filings in the latest tracked year. Given the ~18-month publication lag, this reflects a data-cutoff artifact more than an actual stop in R&D.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Universal Display Corporation | 0 | — |
| Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Eastman Kodak Company | 0 | — |
| LG Display Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Shenzhen China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Novaled AG | 0 | — |
| 3M Innovative Properties Company (USA) | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or new claim drafting.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on US filings
With 534 of 943 records filed through the US office, any product bound for the US market should start invalidity and infringement searches there before checking EPO or China filings.
Explore FTO workflows in EurekaMap the BOE affiliate filing network
The 13-filing co-assignee links between BOE and its regional affiliates suggest a coordinated group filing strategy worth tracing entity by entity before assuming a single BOE portfolio.
Trace assignee networks in EurekaDraft around thin claim density in emitter chemistry
Organometallic emitter clusters (C07F, C09K) are smaller than the core device claims, suggesting room for narrowly drafted chemistry claims that avoid the most heavily cited prior art.
Search prior art in EurekaFrequently asked questions
The assignee ranking is dominated by display panel manufacturers, particularly BOE Technology Group and its regional affiliates, alongside Universal Display, LG Display, and China Star Optoelectronics entities in Wuhan and Shenzhen. Eastman Kodak also appears prominently, reflecting its historical role in OLED emitter chemistry rather than recent activity. Co-assignee filings show BOE working closely with affiliates like Ordos Yuansheng and Hefei Xinsheng, which suggests coordinated group-level prosecution rather than independent filing by each entity. Anyone doing competitive tracking should treat these affiliated entities as one filing group, not separate competitors.
No — filings peaked in 2018 at 147 and had fallen to just 30 by the 2022 midpoint, indicating a declining rather than growing filing rate. Some of the apparent drop in the most recent one to two years is an artifact of the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication, so the very latest years will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. Even accounting for that lag, the multi-year decline from the 2018 peak through 2022 is a real trend, not a data artifact. This points to a field where the core claim territory was largely staked out in the 2017-2019 window.
The United States receives by far the most filings in this space, at 534 records compared to 159 for the EPO and 74 for China, so US patents carry the greatest weight in prior art searches and freedom-to-operate analysis. That said, receiving-office counts reflect where applicants have historically chosen to file, not where enforcement risk is highest for a given product. Companies planning to manufacture or sell in China should still check the 74 China-filed records and the WIPO/PCT pool of 82, since those cover applicants pursuing broader international protection. Office selection should follow your target market, but expect the densest prior art in the US corpus regardless.
Relative to the dominant device-structure claims under H01L (905 records) and organic-semiconductor claims under H10K (459), sub-areas like flexible encapsulation barrier stacks, touch-integrated TFT backplane architectures, and specific emitter ligand chemistries such as azabenzimidazole carbene complexes show comparatively thinner claim density. This does not mean these areas are unclaimed, but the volume of prior art to navigate is smaller. A narrowly drafted claim in one of these branches has a better chance of clearing prior art than a claim filed directly against the core H01L device-structure territory.
US20180138246A1, assigned to Honor Device Co., Ltd. and published in 2018, claims a touch system that stacks a glass cover, polarizer, packaging glass and TFT backplane in sequence, with the touch transmitter circuit placed on the TFT backplane and the receiver circuit placed on the packaging glass. The specific value of the claim is the reduced layer count achieved by splitting the TX and RX circuits across those two existing layers rather than adding dedicated touch layers. Designs that place both touch circuits on separate dedicated films, or that use a different layer for the TX/RX split, would sit outside this particular claim scope, but any design replicating this exact layer-splitting approach should be checked against it directly.
Research OLED Display Materials and Devices in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole oled display materials and devices 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.