Photoresist Developers and Strippers Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Filing activity peaked in 2018 at 10 records and has since flattened toward the 2022 midpoint of 3, with the most recent year understated by publication lag.
- One 2005 filing carries 65 citations far ahead of the next most-cited record at 16 — a strong signal of which claims later filers had to design around.
- G03F photolithography classes cover 89.5% of the 19 records while cleaning-composition class C11D sits at 42.1%, showing most activity is framed as lithography process, not detergent chemistry.
What this dataset covers
This landscape covers 19 published records matching photoresist developer, photoresist stripper and TMAH developer terminology, filtered to filings that address dissolution contrast, residue removal, metal compatibility, surfactant additives or waste treatment, and classified under photolithography, detergent or semiconductor-device IPC codes. The scope spans filings from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, though publication lag of roughly 18 months means the most recent year is always undercounted.
The set is small enough that a handful of records shape the entire picture: a single 2018 filing year accounts for the field's peak activity, and one 2005 record accumulates far more citations than any other. Read the trend and ranking sections as a map of where claim space is already occupied rather than as a measure of how active the field currently is.
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 19 records: how filing activity moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims sit in.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings were absent in 2017, rose to a peak of 10 in 2018, and by the 2022 midpoint had fallen back to 3 — a flat-to-declining pattern rather than sustained growth. The 2026 figure is partial because of publication lag and should not be read as a drop-off.
IPC subclass composition
G03F (photolithography and photomechanics) appears in 89.5% of the 19 records, with H01L (semiconductor devices) at 47.4% and C11D (detergents and cleaning compositions) at 42.1%. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares sum to well over 100%; smaller classes such as B32B, C23C, C23G, E04F and G03C each cover a single record, at 5.3% apiece.
Shares are the percentage of the 19 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Photoresist Developers and Strippers with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about photoresist developers and strippers and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in scope
US20050287480A1 — Photoresist stripper composition
The filing describes a photoresist stripper containing salts of at least two different inorganic acids, surfactants and a corrosion inhibitor for metal, held at a pH of 3-10, aimed at suppressing corrosion or damage to copper wiring or low-k film while improving photoresist residue removal after ashing.Filed by Dongwoo Fine-Chem Co., Ltd., dated 2005-12-29; the most-cited record in this dataset at 65 citations.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050287480A1 | Photoresist stripper composition | 65 |
| 2 | US6107202A | Passivation photoresist stripping method to eliminate photoresist extrusion after alloy | 16 |
| 3 | WO2007139315A1 | Stripper composition for photoresist | 9 |
| 4 | EP3502225A1 | Photoresist stripper | 7 |
| 5 | EP0163202A2 | Photoresist stripper and stripping method | 6 |
| 6 | US20190196337A1 | Photoresist Stripper | 4 |
| 7 | US11353794B2 | Photoresist stripper | 1 |
Citation counts inside this corpus favour older filings and should be read as a signal of influence on later drafting, not of current commercial relevance.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (7 of 7 rows); 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 evidence points to
Three patterns stand out once the filing trend, citation counts and class composition are read together.
Activity has flattened since its 2018 peak
The filing count rose to 10 in 2018 and had fallen to 3 by the 2022 midpoint, with 2017 showing no filings at all. That pattern points to a field where the core chemistry claims were staked out early rather than one still building toward a peak.
One filing dominates the citation graph
US20050287480A1 draws 65 citations, more than four times the next most-cited record at 16. Later filers in copper-compatible stripper chemistry have had to draft around this filing's specific combination of dual inorganic-acid salts, surfactant and corrosion inhibitor.
Most claims are framed as lithography process, not detergent chemistry
G03F covers 89.5% of the 19 records and H01L 47.4%, while C11D detergent-composition framing appears in only 42.1%. Drafting a stripper or developer claim purely as a cleaning composition, without tying it to the lithography or device-fabrication step, sits outside where most of this art has been filed.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to photoresist developers and strippers, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders list returned by this dataset covers 15 companies, counted in records; it is not a top-50 or top-100 list, and the leader holds 10 records against a fifth-place and tenth-place count of 1 each — a steep drop after the top of the table.
A single leader holds the bulk of the ranked filings
The top assignee in this ranking accounts for 10 of the records tracked, while fifth place and tenth place each hold only 1. That gap suggests the leader staked out core stripper and developer chemistry claims before most of the rest of the ranked field filed at all.
Most ranked assignees hold a single record
Beyond the leader, the ranking drops quickly to single-record assignees, including individual inventors alongside corporate filers. That mix points to a field where late entrants file narrowly, often around a specific additive or process step, rather than building a broad portfolio.
No tracked assignee shows filings in the latest year
Every assignee named in the recent-year momentum data, including the top-ranked ones, shows zero filings in the latest tracked year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this reads as a reporting gap rather than firms exiting the space.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Versum Materials US LLC | 0 | — |
| Zhejiang Aufirst Material Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Shipley Company Inc | 0 | — |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) | 0 | — |
| TAKASHIMA MASAYUKI | 0 | — |
| SEO SUNG WOO | 0 | — |
| PARK MIN CHOON | 0 | — |
| MIN SUNG JOON | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a narrow, top-heavy field with a dominant early filing. These next steps help translate that into drafting and freedom-to-operate decisions.
Map the leader's full claim scope
With one assignee holding 10 of the ranked records, a claim-by-claim review of that portfolio against your target chemistry is the fastest way to find out what is actually blocked versus merely adjacent.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaCheck the under-claimed sub-areas directly
Classes like C23G, B32B and E04F each cover only a single record in this dataset — worth a targeted search before assuming they are open.
Run a white space search in EurekaTrack the next publication window
Because of the roughly 18-month publication lag, filings from the last two years are still arriving. A recheck closer to the next data refresh will clarify whether the 2022 downturn is real or an artifact of lag.
Set a monitoring alert in EurekaCommon questions on photoresist developer and stripper patents
In this dataset the ranked leader holds 10 of the records tracked, well ahead of the rest of the 15-company ranking, where fifth place and tenth place each hold only 1 record. That gap indicates the leading assignee filed broadly and early rather than the field being evenly split. It is worth reviewing that portfolio's specific claim language before drafting new formulations, since it likely covers several of the more common corrosion-inhibitor and surfactant combinations.
The filing trend in this dataset shows zero filings in 2017, a peak of 10 in 2018, and a decline to 3 by the 2022 midpoint. This pattern is consistent with a field where core chemistry claims — particularly around copper-compatible corrosion inhibitors and residue removal after ashing — were staked out in a short window rather than filed steadily over time. The 2026 figures should be read as incomplete given the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication.
US20050287480A1 claims a photoresist stripper composition containing salts of at least two different inorganic acids, surfactants and a metal corrosion inhibitor, held at a pH between 3 and 10, intended to strip photoresist residue after ashing while protecting copper wiring or low-k film. It is the most-cited record in this dataset at 65 citations, more than four times the next most-cited filing. Anyone drafting a stripper formulation for copper-based semiconductor processes should check this claim scope directly rather than relying on a summary.
Based on the filing trend here, no — activity peaked in 2018 and had fallen to a midpoint of 3 filings by 2022, and every tracked assignee shows zero filings in the most recent year. Some of that recent-year flatness is publication lag rather than a genuine stop in filing, since publication typically trails filing by around 18 months. Even accounting for lag, the overall shape is flat to declining rather than expansionary.
The IPC composition shows that classes like C23G (metal surface cleaning), B32B (layered products), E04F (building finishing) and G03C (photosensitive materials) each cover only a single record out of the 19 in scope, compared with 89.5% for core photolithography class G03F. That imbalance suggests formulation work tying stripper or developer chemistry to adjacent surface-cleaning or laminate applications is comparatively under-claimed. Any freedom-to-operate check in those adjacent classes should still be run directly rather than assumed from record counts alone.
Research Photoresist Developers and Strippers in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole photoresist developers and strippers 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.