Optical Bonding Patents: Leader, Long Tail & Trends 2026
- One filer holds 67 of 293 records, and the top 5 combined account for 44.7% of all records in scope — this field is concentrated, not fragmented.
- Filing peaked in 2020 at 59 records, then fell -69% from 29 (2021) to 9 (2024), the last year publication lag lets us treat as complete.
- Semiconductor and printed-circuit classes dominate the mix, H01L (28.0%) and H05K (26.3%) outrank pure optics classes like G02B (10.6%), signalling that bonding claims increasingly ride on device-integration language.
Filing growth compares 2021 (29 records) with 2024 (9) — 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. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 293 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 293 published records matching optical bonding, display lamination and vacuum lamination process language, cross-referenced against bubble removal, autoclave processing, alignment accuracy, adhesive dispensing, curved-surface bonding and rework-yield terms. The scope spans 2015 to the current data cut-off, capturing the period in which optical bonding moved from a niche ruggedised-display technique into a mainstream step for consumer touch panels, automotive displays and flexible electronics.
Records are drawn from filings at the United States, European, WIPO/PCT and several national offices, giving a cross-jurisdictional view of where applicants have chosen to seek protection rather than a single-country snapshot.
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 293 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend: a sharp rise, then a pullback
Filings climbed to a peak of 59 records in 2020, then declined; the 2021-to-2024 span shows a -69% drop from 29 to 9 records. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as incomplete rather than as evidence of continued decline, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
Technology mix: device integration outweighs pure optics
H01L (semiconductor devices, 28.0% of records) and H05K (printed circuits and assemblies, 26.3%) each appear in more records than G02B (optical elements, 10.6%) or G02F (optical control and modulation, 14.3%). B32B (layered products, 24.6%), C09J (adhesives, 13.0%) and C08K/C08F (polymer additives and addition polymers, 12.6% and 19.5%) round out a picture where lamination claims are written jointly with materials and device-assembly language rather than standing alone as optics.
Shares are the percentage of the 293 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Optical Bonding and Lamination Process with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about optical bonding and lamination process and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this space
Electronic device stack assembly
An electronic device includes a stack assembly and a cover glass. The stack assembly includes an electrophoretic display sub-assembly for rendering content, a front light sub-assembly comprising a light guide, a light FPC, and a plurality of light sources, and a capacitive touch sensing sub-assembly for detecting touch inputs. A yellow-pigmented tape is applied over the light sources and an edge of the light guide. A stiffener member is coupled to the light FPC opposite the yellow-pigmented tape.Filed by Amazon Technologies, Inc., published 2018-09-06 as US20180252981A1 — illustrates how bonding and lamination claims get bundled with e-reader stack assembly and touch-sensing structure.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20150226986A1 | Electro-optic displays, and materials for use therein | 84 |
| 2 | US20110164301A1 | Electro-optic displays, and materials for use therein | 82 |
| 3 | US20150227018A1 | Electro-optic displays, and materials for use therein | 75 |
| 4 | US20080185035A1 | Solar cells encapsulated with poly(vinyl butyral) | 66 |
| 5 | US20080264481A1 | Solar cell modules comprising compositionally distinct encapsulant layers | 59 |
| 6 | US20120261805A1 | Through package via structures in panel-based silicon substrates and methods of making the same | 57 |
| 7 | US20080264471A1 | Solar cell modules comprising compositionally distinct encapsulant layers | 55 |
| 8 | US20100113264A1 | Conductive substance-adsorbing resin film, method for producing conductive substance-adsorbing resin film, me… | 51 |
| 9 | US6168851B1 | Hot-melt webs, laminates, and laminate making method | 51 |
| 10 | US20130146120A1 | High concentration photovoltaic modules and methods of fabricating the same | 49 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and are skewed toward older filings; they are not a measure 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 data means for filing strategy
Reading the concentration, timing and classification data together points to a field where the claim space is already staked out at the top, but the underlying materials and process detail keep shifting.
Leadership is concentrated, not fragmented
One assignee holds 67 records outright, and the top 5 combined hold 44.7% of all 293 records in scope. A long tail of 86 ranked companies still means most entrants hold only a handful of filings each, so a new filer competes against a small number of deep portfolios rather than many equal peers.
Activity has cooled from its 2020 peak
Filings peaked at 59 records in 2020 and fell to 9 by 2024, a -69% move over that three-year span. Recent-year momentum tables show several major assignees at zero filings in the latest tracked year, consistent with the broader pullback rather than any single company's exit.
Claims lean on device-integration language
H01L (semiconductor devices) and H05K (printed circuits) each cover a larger share of records than any pure optics class, meaning bonding and lamination steps are most often claimed as part of a device stack rather than as a standalone optical process.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to optical bonding and lamination process, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Henkel AG & Co. KGaA | Henkel IP & Holding GmbH | 8 |
| 3M Innovative Properties Co. | Sinlih Technology (Private) Co., Ltd. | 3 |
| E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company | SMITH CHARLES ANTHONY | 2 |
| E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company | SAMUELS SAM LOUIS | 2 |
| E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company | PESEK STEVEN C | 2 |
| E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company | LEN GERALDINE M | 2 |
| E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company | HAYES RICHARD ALLEN | 2 |
| E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company | HAYES RICHARD A | 2 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset; the strongest pair co-files 8 records together, well above the next tier, suggesting a small number of formal joint-development relationships rather than a broad collaboration network.
Who holds the claim space, and where it is open
The ranking covers 86 companies with published records in scope. A small group holds most of the volume; below them sits a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants.
One assignee sets the pace
The top-ranked assignee holds 67 of the 293 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 13 and tenth place at 6 — a steep drop-off that marks this as a leader-and-long-tail structure rather than an evenly spread field.
A defined second tier, then a long tail
Filing counts fall off quickly after the top few names; by tenth place the count is down to 6 records, and most of the 86 ranked companies sit well below that.
US and EPO dominate the filing venues
The United States accounts for the largest single share of receiving-office activity at 133 records, followed by the European Patent Office at 66 and WIPO/PCT filings at 32, with smaller but notable counts at the Austrian, German and Indian offices.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. | 0 | — |
| E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company | 0 | — |
| 3M Innovative Properties Co. | 0 | -100% |
| Lumileds LLC | 0 | — |
| Amazon Technologies, Inc. | 0 | — |
| MORROW NV | 0 | — |
| Henkel AG & Co. KGaA | 0 | — |
| Henkel IP & Holding GmbH | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio benchmarking or identifying open claim space.
Map claims against the leader's 67-record portfolio
Before filing in this space, check which specific claim language the top assignee already holds across its 67 records, since the concentration data shows this single portfolio covers the largest share of the field.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTest white-space branches for filing viability
Sub-areas like curved-surface bonding and rework-yield recovery show thinner filing density than the core H01L and B32B classes, which may indicate room for narrower, defensible claims.
Run a white-space search in EurekaWatch for the next filing wave
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the apparent 2024 low may not hold once 2025-2026 filings finish publishing; re-checking the trend in a future cut is worthwhile before drawing conclusions about the field's direction.
Set up a filing alert in EurekaCommon questions about optical bonding and lamination patents
The dataset ranks 86 companies with published records in this space, and the field is concentrated rather than fragmented: the top-ranked assignee alone holds 67 of the 293 records in scope, and the top 5 assignees combined hold 44.7% of all records. Beyond roughly the top ten filers, holdings drop off sharply into a long tail of companies with only a handful of filings each. This structure means a new entrant is really competing against a small number of deep portfolios, not a broad, even field of peers.
Filing activity peaked at 59 records in 2020 and has since declined, falling -69% from 29 records in 2021 to 9 records in 2024, which is the most recent year the data can treat as complete. Because patent publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, the very latest years in any dataset always look artificially low, so 2025 and 2026 figures should not yet be read as a continuing drop. The safest reading is that activity cooled from a 2020 high rather than that the technology is being abandoned.
The largest classes are H01L (semiconductor devices, 28.0% of the 293 records) and H05K (printed circuits and assemblies, 26.3%), ahead of B32B (layered products and laminates, 24.6%) and the pure optics classes G02F (14.3%) and G02B (10.6%). Adhesive-related classes C09J and polymer classes C08F and C08K also appear across a meaningful share of records. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100%, and the pattern shows that bonding and lamination claims are usually written alongside device-integration or materials language rather than as standalone optical claims.
Relative to the dense core classes like H01L, B32B and H05K, sub-areas such as curved-surface bonding for flexible panels, autoclave cycle optimisation, rework-yield recovery methods and adhesive dispensing tuned for micro-LED stacks show thinner filing density in this dataset. That does not guarantee an easy path to allowance, since some of these areas may simply attract less patenting rather than being technically open, but they are reasonable starting points for a more targeted prior-art search before drafting new claims.
The United States receives the largest share of filings in this dataset at 133 records, followed by the European Patent Office at 66 and WIPO/PCT applications at 32. Austria, Germany and India each show smaller but non-trivial counts. This spread suggests that applicants in this space typically prioritise US and European protection first, with PCT filings used to preserve broader international options before committing to national phase entry elsewhere.
Research Optical Bonding and Lamination Process in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole optical bonding and lamination 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.