OLED-on-Silicon Microdisplays Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- 42.9% concentration. The top five assignees combined hold 4,510 of the 10,514 records in scope — a genuinely concentrated field, not a fragmented one.
- Filing peaked in 2017. 841 records that year against 40 in the most recent (partial) year — a decline visible well before the usual 18-month publication lag is factored in.
- H10K and G09G trail H01L closely. Organic-semiconductor and display-driving classes each cover roughly a third of records, meaning most filings straddle materials and circuit claims at once.
What the patent record shows about OLED-on-silicon microdisplays
OLED-on-silicon microdisplays sit at the intersection of organic-emitter chemistry and CMOS backplane design, which is why the classification split in this dataset is so even: H01L semiconductor-device claims cover just over half of all records, while H10K organic-semiconductor claims and G09G display-driving claims each sit near a third. A single record filed on pixel structure or aperture ratio routinely touches all three at once, which is a structural feature of the technology rather than an artefact of the search.
The filing trend tells a clearer story than the classification mix: activity rose to a peak of 841 records in 2017 and has fallen every year since, reaching 40 by the most recent, still-partial year. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the last one or two years will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be — but the decline from the 2017 peak through the 2022 midpoint of 244 predates that lag effect and looks like a genuine cooling of new 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 10,514 records: filing volume by year, and the IPC subclasses those records carry.
Filings rose to a 2017 peak, then declined
From 841 records in 2017 to 40 in the most recent year, with the 2022 midpoint at 244 — a downward trend that holds even before accounting for publication lag on the last one to two years.
Claims cluster in semiconductor, organic and driving-circuit classes
H01L (53.1%) leads, with H10K (36.2%) and G09G (33.2%) close behind; H05B, C09K, H10D, G06F and C07D each cover a smaller but still material slice, since records typically carry more than one class.
Shares are the percentage of the 10,514 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on OLED-on-Silicon Microdisplays with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about oled-on-silicon microdisplays and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe patents everyone else in this field cites
Gradual resolution panel driving for multi-pixel density OLED display panel
A method includes displaying an image on an organic light-emitting (OLED) display panel that includes a first display area having a first pixel density and a second display area having a second pixel density lower than the first pixel density, and while displaying the image, deactivating individual pixels in the first display area corresponding to a proximity of the individual pixels to the second display area such that a region of the first display area adjacent the second display area has a virtual pixel density between the first pixel density and the second pixel density.Filed by Google, this record claims variable-density pixel driving rather than a fixed uniform array — a foveated-display approach distinct from the fixed-pitch pixel structure claims that dominate the most-cited older filings.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20070152217A1 | Pixel structure of active matrix organic light-emitting diode and method for fabricating the same | 4,407 |
| 2 | US20070024187A1 | Organic light emitting display (OLED) and its method of fabrication | 4,262 |
| 3 | US20090068773A1 | Method for fabricating pixel structure of active matrix organic light-emitting diode | 4,228 |
| 4 | US20080018221A1 | Use Of Transition Metal Carbene Complexes In Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (Oleds) | 1,212 |
| 5 | WO2010107244A2 | Novel organic electroluminescent compounds and organic electroluminescent device using the same | 893 |
| 6 | US20100288362A1 | Internal connector for organic electronic devices | 840 |
| 7 | WO2010056066A1 | Novel organometallic compounds for electroluminescence and organic electroluminescent device using the same | 732 |
| 8 | WO2014024131A1 | Transition metal complexes with carbene ligands and use thereof in oleds | 713 |
| 9 | US6859193B1 | Current drive circuit and display device using the same, pixel circuit, and drive method | 682 |
| 10 | TW201329200A | Novel organic electroluminescent compounds and organic electroluminescent device using the same | 595 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings that had more years to accumulate references — treat them as a signal of influence on the field's vocabulary, 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 filing strategy
Four read-outs from the concentration, classification and receiving-office data.
The field is led, not fragmented
Top 5 assignees combined account for 4,510 of the 10,514 records in scope, and the top 10 extend that to 53.6%. A new entrant is filing into a space where over half of the prior art already sits with a small set of established players.
New filing has slowed sharply since 2017
The peak year, 2017, produced 841 records; the most recent (partial) year has 40. The 2022 midpoint of 244 confirms this is a sustained decline, not a one-year dip, even allowing for publication lag on the newest filings.
Semiconductor and organic-material claims overlap heavily
H01L covers 53.1% of records and H10K covers 36.2%; because records can carry multiple classes, a large share of filings claim both device structure and organic-emitter material in the same document.
US filing dominates, Europe and China follow
The United States receives more filings (5,721) than any other office tracked, with Europe (EPO, 1,522), China (817) and WIPO/PCT (674) forming a second tier. Filing-office choice tracks where enforcement and commercial risk are judged highest.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to oled-on-silicon microdisplays, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where the gate sits
The leader holds 1,700 records; fifth place holds 281 and tenth place holds 195 — a steep drop-off after the top few names, then a long tail across the rest of the ranked 100.
One assignee's portfolio dwarfs the rest
The leader's record count is roughly six times the tenth-place figure of 195, a gap that signals a portfolio built over many filing cycles rather than a recent surge.
Even the leaders are filing less each year
Recent-year momentum among the most active historical filers is negative across the board, with year-on-year declines ranging from -50% to -100% and several leaders recording zero filings in the latest year.
Co-assignment clusters around a handful of related entities
The strongest co-assignee pairs link a parent group with its regional subsidiaries, with the top pairing appearing together on dozens of records — a pattern of intra-group filing rather than cross-company joint development.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Samsung Display Co., Ltd. | 2 | -78% |
| BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. | 1 | -50% |
| LG Display Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Samsung Mobile Display Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Eastman Kodak Company | 0 | — |
| Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Universal Display Corporation | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis next
The figures above describe the field as a whole. Two follow-on checks are worth running before committing a filing strategy.
Map claim scope against the leader's live portfolio
A record count of 1,700 does not tell you which claims are still enforceable or which have lapsed. Pulling the leader's active family status against your own draft claims narrows the actual freedom-to-operate question.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaWatch the declining-filer group for abandonment signals
Several leading assignees show 0 filings in the latest year. That can mean a shift to trade-secret protection, a technology pivot, or simply publication lag — worth checking family-by-family rather than assuming either.
Track filing momentum in EurekaQuestions practitioners ask about this field
The leading assignee in this dataset holds 1,700 of the 10,514 records in scope, well ahead of the rest of the ranked field. The top five combined hold 4,510 records, or 42.9% of all records, and the top ten extend that to 53.6%. After the top few names the ranking thins into a long tail across the remaining ranked companies, so most of the competitive weight sits with a small group rather than being evenly spread.
Filing has slowed markedly since a 2017 peak of 841 records, falling to 40 in the most recent, still-partial year, with a 2022 midpoint of 244 confirming the decline is not a single-year anomaly. Publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so the very newest year will always understate true activity, but the multi-year downward trend predates that lag. Several of the most active historical filers also show negative year-on-year momentum recently, reinforcing the same signal.
H01L, covering semiconductor devices generally, appears on 53.1% of the 10,514 records in scope, meaning claim space around device structure is densely occupied. That density reflects how much prior art exists in a given claim area, not how mature or exhausted the underlying technology is — new approaches can still be patentable if they differ structurally from what is already claimed. Because H10K (organic semiconductors) and G09G (display driving) also cover roughly a third of records each, most filings in this space combine device, material and driving-circuit claims rather than sitting in one class alone.
Classes with a smaller share of the 10,514 records, such as C09K (materials, 5.6%) and C07D (heterocyclic compounds, 3.7%), sit well below the dominant H01L, H10K and G09G classes, suggesting thinner coverage in specific material and chemistry sub-areas relative to the core device and driving claims. Variable pixel-density driving for foveated or power-aware displays, illustrated by the representative Google filing in this dataset, is another area where the claim approach looks less crowded than fixed-pitch pixel-structure claims. Any white-space assessment should still be confirmed against live claim scope, not classification share alone.
The United States receives more filings in this dataset than any other office, at 5,721 records, followed by the European Patent Office at 1,522 and China at 817; WIPO/PCT filings total 674. That ordering generally reflects where applicants judge commercial risk and enforcement value to be highest for this technology, though it is a count of where filings were made, not a recommendation independent of your own commercial footprint. UK (400) and Austria (316) filings form a smaller but still notable secondary tier.
Research OLED-on-Silicon Microdisplays in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole oled-on-silicon microdisplays 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.