OPC Model Calibration Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 51.5% of the field sits with five companies. 331 of 643 records in scope belong to the top five assignees, so freedom-to-operate work concentrates fast once you know who they are.
- Filings grew 32% from 2021 to 2024. 34 records in 2021 rose to 45 in 2024 — the last year the trend can be read as complete before publication lag understates 2025 and 2026.
- G03F carries 71.1% of records, G06F 49.3%. Photolithography claims dominate, but almost half the field also touches digital-processing classes — a sign that software-side calibration claims now sit alongside optical ones.
Filing growth compares 2021 (34 records) with 2024 (45) — 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 643 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Optical proximity correction (OPC) model calibration sits at the intersection of photolithography and computational modelling: it is the discipline of tuning the mathematical models that predict how a mask pattern will actually print on a wafer, so that edge placement error stays within tolerance. The search underlying this page pulls 643 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 where the claims or abstract reference model accuracy, edge placement error, calibration data, hotspot detection, turnaround time or wafer measurement alongside OPC, resist modelling or model calibration terms.
The dataset spans classic optics-first filings alongside a growing share of software and machine-learning approaches to the same calibration problem, which is why the technology composition below shows meaningful overlap between photolithography and digital-data-processing classes rather than a single dominant class.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 643 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Steady growth through 2024, with the two most recent years still filling in
Recorded filings ran from 30 in 2017 to a peak of 65 in 2022, then continued at a high level; 2021's 34 rose to 45 by 2024, a 32% increase over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 show fewer records only because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months — those years are not yet complete and should not be read as a slowdown.
Photolithography claims dominate, but digital processing is close behind
G03F (photolithography and photomechanics) appears in 71.1% of the 643 records, confirming this is still fundamentally an optics discipline. G06F (electric digital data processing) appears in 49.3% of records, reflecting how much of modern OPC calibration work is now expressed as computational claims. Smaller shares in G06N (AI-based computing, 5.0%) and G06T (image data processing, 3.7%) mark where machine-learning framing is starting to enter calibration claims, though neither is yet a major branch on its own.
Shares are the percentage of the 643 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Optical Proximity Correction Model Calibration with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about optical proximity correction model calibration and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this field
US8881070B1 — Optical proximity correction based on edge fragment correlation
The patent applies edge fragment correlation information to optical proximity correction. Conventional edge adjustment values are first derived from edge placement error values; neighbor-aware edge adjustment values are then computed from those edge placement error values, the conventional adjustments and the correlation information between neighboring fragments, using pseudo edge placement error values calculated by subtracting neighboring edge movement contributions.Filed by Siemens Industry Software (2014). Its claim scope centers on neighbor-aware fragment correlation, a specific mathematical step within the broader OPC correction pipeline.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20080309897A1 | Multivariable solver for optical proximity correction | 313 |
| 2 | US20100162197A1 | Method and system for lithography process-window-maximixing optical proximity correction | 268 |
| 3 | US20100180251A1 | Method for process window optimized optical proximity correction | 257 |
| 4 | US7350183B2 | Method for improving optical proximity correction | 245 |
| 5 | US20060101370A1 | Method for improving optical proximity correction | 240 |
| 6 | US20070032896A1 | Method for lithography model calibration | 207 |
| 7 | US7568174B2 | Method for checking printability of a lithography target | 184 |
| 8 | US20070094634A1 | Method for checking printability of a lithography target | 183 |
| 9 | US7873929B2 | Method, apparatus and system for designing an integrated circuit including generating at least one auxiliary … | 169 |
| 10 | US6467076B1 | Method and apparatus for submicron IC design | 140 |
Citation counts reward older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate references — treat this table as a map of foundational influence, not of current filing activity.
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 strategy
Three read-throughs from the filing and citation data that matter for anyone deciding where to file or where to look for freedom to operate.
The top of the field is tight
Five companies hold 331 of the 643 records in scope, and the top ten extend that to 449, or 69.8%. A search for prior art or a freedom-to-operate opinion in this space will very quickly run into the same small set of large filers, particularly in core photolithography claims.
Activity has kept climbing, not plateaued
The move from 34 records in 2021 to 45 in 2024 shows real growth in a field some might assume was mature. The apparent dip in 2025 and 2026 is a publication-lag artefact, not a sign the field has cooled.
Software claims now sit alongside optics claims
Nearly half of all records carry a digital-data-processing class alongside the dominant photolithography class. That overlap signals calibration work increasingly gets claimed as a computational method rather than purely an optical correction step, which changes where prior art searches need to look.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to optical proximity correction model calibration, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders in this dataset cover 100 companies; a handful of large semiconductor manufacturers and toolmakers account for most of the volume, while the rest of the ranking thins out quickly into single- and low-digit filers.
One filer sits well ahead of fifth place
The leading assignee holds 86 records against 46 at fifth place, a gap wide enough that its portfolio alone shapes freedom-to-operate analysis for any new entrant working on mainstream OPC calibration methods.
Volume falls off fast after the top ten
The top ten assignees combine for 449 of 643 records, 69.8% of the field. Below that line, filing counts drop into single digits quickly, which is where smaller specialist software vendors and university-linked filers tend to sit.
Latest-year filings from major assignees have gone quiet
Several of the largest historical filers show zero or sharply negative year-on-year activity in the most recent tracked year. Given the 18-month publication lag, this likely reflects filings still working through the pipeline rather than an actual pullback from these firms.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (TSMC) | 1 | 0% |
| Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Semiconductor Manufacturing International (Shanghai) Corporation | 0 | — |
| ASML Netherlands B.V. | 0 | -100% |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | 0 | — |
| Mentor Graphics Corporation | 0 | — |
| Semiconductor Manufacturing International (Beijing) Corporation | 0 | — |
| Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a few concrete next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom to operate, licensing, or identifying open claim space.
Map the top assignees' claim scope directly
With 51.5% of records held by five companies, a targeted claim-chart review of their core OPC calibration families will cover most of the field's blocking risk in one pass.
Explore assignee portfolios in Eureka →Watch the AI-calibration crossover classes
G06N and G06T together sit under 10% of records but track the shift toward machine-learning-driven calibration; monitoring new filings in these classes flags emerging competitors early.
Track emerging filings in Eureka →Validate 2025–2026 filings as they publish
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true 2025 and 2026 filing counts will keep rising after this data cut-off; re-check the trend before drawing conclusions about a slowdown.
Set up monitoring in Eureka →Common questions about this landscape
One assignee leads the ranked field with 86 records, well ahead of the fifth-placed company at 46. The top five assignees together hold 331 of the 643 records in scope, or 51.5% of the field, so a small number of large semiconductor manufacturers and toolmakers dominate the core claim space. Anyone doing freedom-to-operate work here should expect to encounter the same handful of portfolios repeatedly, particularly in classic G03F photolithography claims.
Yes, based on the years that can be read as complete: recorded filings rose from 34 in 2021 to 45 in 2024, a 32% increase over that span, with a peak year of 65 records in 2022. The apparent drop in 2025 and 2026 filings is a publication-lag artefact rather than a genuine slowdown, since patent publication typically trails actual filing by about 18 months. Trend conclusions should be anchored to 2024 or earlier.
G03F, the photolithography and photomechanics class, appears in 71.1% of the 643 records in scope, confirming this remains fundamentally an optics-driven field. G06F, electric digital data processing, appears in 49.3% of records, showing that a large share of modern filings frame calibration as a computational method rather than a purely optical correction step. Smaller classes like G06N (AI-based computing) and G06T (image processing) are present but still minor, at 5.0% and 3.7% of records respectively.
The classes carrying the fewest records relative to the core photolithography and digital-processing claims include AI-driven hotspot detection, cross-layer edge placement error correlation, and turnaround-time optimisation specifically for calibration data pipelines. These sub-areas show enough filing activity to confirm they are recognised problems, but not enough to suggest the claim space is crowded. A first claim in one of these areas would need to tie a specific technical mechanism, such as a particular machine-learning architecture or data pipeline structure, to the calibration outcome to avoid the well-trodden core claims.
US8881070B1, assigned to Siemens Industry Software and filed in 2014, claims a specific method of computing neighbor-aware edge adjustment values by correlating edge placement error contributions between neighboring mask edge fragments. It does not block OPC correction generally, nor edge placement error correction as a category; it blocks implementations that use this particular fragment-correlation calculation step, including the pseudo edge placement error subtraction method described in the claims. Someone implementing OPC calibration that adjusts edges independently, without this cross-fragment correlation step, would sit outside its claim scope.
Research Optical Proximity Correction Model Calibration in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole optical proximity correction model calibration 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.