Plasma Etching Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- Filing has plateaued, not grown. 48 families in 2017 and 49 at the 2022 midpoint show flat activity rather than a rising wave — this is a maintained field, not an emerging one.
- Every top-ranked assignee shows 0 filings in the latest year. That drop tracks the 18-month publication lag, not a real pullback, but it means recent strategic moves by the largest filers are not yet visible in the public record.
- Claim density concentrates outside chip design proper. H01L carries 1,423 of 1,546 records, but H01J electron/discharge tube claims (310) and C23F corrosion/etch-chemistry claims (197) show meaningful independent claim territory.
Filing growth compares 2021 (38 records) with 2024 (38) — 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 1,546 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the plasma etching patent record actually covers
Plasma etching process technology spans the hardware that generates and controls a plasma, the process recipes that translate a target profile into gas chemistry and RF power sequencing, and the metrology that tells an operator when to stop. This search set isolates records that combine plasma or reactive-ion etching with claims on etch selectivity, profile control, aspect-ratio-dependent etching, chamber matching, or endpoint detection — the process-control layer rather than tool mechanics alone.
Across 1,546 families filed between 2015 and mid-2026, the record concentrates in semiconductor device IPC classes but reaches into corrosion/etch chemistry and photolithography classifications, indicating that process-control claims are being filed by chemistry teams and lithography teams as well as etch-tool makers.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,546-family corpus: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how the claim space distributes across IPC subclasses.
A flat decade, not a growth curve
Filings opened at 48 in 2017, peaked at 50 in 2020, and sat at 49 by the 2022 midpoint — a pattern of steady maintenance filing rather than expansion. The apparent falloff toward 2026 reflects the ~18-month lag between filing and publication, not a real drop in activity.
Where the claims sit
H01L (semiconductor devices) dominates at 1,423 of 1,546 records, but H01J (electron/discharge tubes, 310) and C23F (corrosion and metal removal, 197) carry substantial independent claim volume — evidence that hardware and chemistry claims are filed separately from device-integration claims.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,546 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Plasma Etching Process Technology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about plasma etching process technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records other filings build on
Method and apparatus for reducing aspect ratio dependent etching in time division multiplexed etch processes
The present invention provides a method and an apparatus for reducing aspect ratio dependent etching that is observed when plasma etching deep trenches in a semiconductor substrate through an alternating deposition/etch process. A plurality of different sized features on the substrate are monitored in real time during the alternating deposition/etch process. Then, based on the information received from the monitor, at least one process parameter is adjusted in the alternating deposition/etch process to achieve equivalent etch depths of at least two different sized features on the substrate.Filed by Plasma-Therm, LLC — a granted example of closed-loop, real-time feedback control applied specifically to aspect-ratio-dependent etching in a Bosch-style alternating deposition/etch process.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20150270140A1 | Atomic layer or cyclic plasma etching chemistries and processes | 812 |
| 2 | US20120241411A1 | Sequential infiltration synthesis for advanced lithography | 775 |
| 3 | US6284149B1 | High-density plasma etching of carbon-based low-k materials in a integrated circuit | 515 |
| 4 | US20170343896A1 | Sequential infiltration synthesis for enhancing multiple-patterning lithography | 483 |
| 5 | US6617253B1 | Plasma etching method using polymer deposition and method of forming contact hole using the plasma etching me… | 472 |
| 6 | US5534751A | Plasma etching apparatus utilizing plasma confinement | 432 |
| 7 | US4855017A | Trench etch process for a single-wafer RIE dry etch reactor | 427 |
| 8 | US9684234B2 | Sequential infiltration synthesis for enhancing multiple-patterning lithography | 418 |
| 9 | US6051503A | Method of surface treatment of semiconductor substrates | 344 |
| 10 | US20040058517A1 | Method of fabricating a gate structure of a field effect transistor using an alpha-carbon mask | 319 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus skew toward older, foundational filings — read them as a signal of influence on later drafting, not as evidence 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 a filing decision
Three patterns in the data carry direct implications for where new claims are likely to survive prosecution and where they are likely to collide with prior art.
A maintained field, not a growth market
Volume has hovered in a narrow band for a decade rather than trending upward. New entrants should expect to compete against an established, actively maintained portfolio base rather than open ground.
US-centric filing with a real international tail
The United States receives more than five times the next-largest office, but PCT, European, Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese filings together show this is prosecuted as a global portfolio, not a US-only defensive filing pattern.
Chemistry and hardware claims sit apart from device claims
Nearly a fifth of the corpus classifies under electron/discharge-tube or corrosion/metal-removal subclasses rather than semiconductor-device classes, meaning process-chemistry and chamber-hardware claims are being prosecuted on their own footing.
A small number of tightly linked inventor clusters
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pairing recurs across multiple filings — a signal of a small, stable core team rather than broad cross-company collaboration.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to plasma etching process technology, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| KUMAR BV | LEI WEI SHENG | 37 |
| KUMAR BV | EATON BRAD | 36 |
| LEI WEI SHENG | EATON BRAD | 35 |
| KUMAR BV | PAPANU JAMES S | 19 |
| LEI WEI SHENG | PAPANU JAMES S | 19 |
| Tokyo Electron Limited | Tokyo Electron U.S. Holdings, Inc. | 18 |
| EATON BRAD | PAPANU JAMES S | 17 |
| KUMAR BV | YALAMANCHILI MADHAVA RAO | 13 |
The strongest recurring inventor pairs suggest process-control innovation here is driven by small, stable teams rather than shifting joint ventures.
Who holds the portfolio, and where the gate sits
The largest assignees in this dataset all show a drop to zero filings in the most recent year — consistent with publication lag across the board rather than a genuine pullback by any single firm. That makes the momentum column a lagging indicator here, not a current-strategy signal.
Concentration at the top, long tail beneath
A small set of large semiconductor-equipment and device makers account for the bulk of filings, with a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants below them — typical of a mature process-control field with high barriers to first filing.
Publication lag masks recent strategy
Every leading assignee shows a -100% year-over-year figure in the most recent year. Given the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication, this reflects reporting lag rather than firms exiting the space.
Tight inventor clusters, not broad alliances
The strongest co-filing relationships repeat across several patents, pointing to durable internal teams rather than shifting cross-licensing or joint-venture activity.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Applied Materials, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Tokyo Electron Limited | 0 | -100% |
| Lam Research Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | 0 | — |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) | 0 | -100% |
| Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korea) | 0 | -100% |
| KUMAR BV | 0 | — |
| LEI WEI SHENG | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy, or first-filing opportunity.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on the most-cited records
The five most-cited patents in this corpus, including the aspect-ratio-dependent etching filing from Plasma-Therm, define much of the claim boundary that later filings had to work around. Any new process-control filing should be checked against these first.
Explore in EurekaMap the under-claimed IPC branches to your own roadmap
Endpoint detection, chamber matching, and corrosion-resistant chamber materials show thinner claim density than the core device classes. A targeted search inside these subclasses can surface where a first claim is still available.
Explore in EurekaRe-check assignee momentum once the lag window closes
Because every top assignee shows zero filings in the latest year, the real 2025-2026 filing picture will only become visible as publications catch up. Re-running the assignee ranking in six to twelve months will give a truer read.
Explore in EurekaCommon questions on plasma etching patents
The dataset shows filing concentrated among a small group of large semiconductor-equipment and device manufacturers, with a long tail of smaller filers below them. All of the largest assignees show zero filings in the most recent year in the public record, which reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than any actual exit from the field. A current ranking table is the most reliable way to see relative scale, since raw counts change as new publications land.
Filing volume has been essentially flat for a decade: 48 families in 2017, a peak of 50 in 2020, and 49 at the 2022 midpoint. That pattern indicates a mature, actively maintained field rather than a growth market, so new filers should expect dense prior art rather than open ground. The apparent decline toward 2026 in the raw trend line is a publication-lag artefact, not a real drop in filing activity.
Relative to the core semiconductor-device classification, subclasses tied to electron/discharge-tube hardware and corrosion/metal-removal chemistry carry meaningfully lower claim volume in this corpus. Within those, real-time endpoint detection, chamber-to-chamber matching, and atomic-layer cyclic etch chemistries show the thinner claim density that suggests room for a well-drafted first claim. That said, thinner density is a relative signal from this corpus, not a guarantee of allowability — a full freedom-to-operate search is still required before filing.
This Plasma-Therm filing covers a method and apparatus for reducing aspect-ratio-dependent etching during alternating deposition/etch (Bosch-style) processes, using real-time monitoring of multiple differently sized features and adjusting a process parameter mid-run to equalize their etch depths. It is a closed-loop feedback approach specifically aimed at the problem of features of different sizes etching at different rates. Anyone building real-time profile-correction control into a deep-trench or high-aspect-ratio etch process should review its claim scope directly rather than relying on the abstract alone.
Patent applications typically publish about 18 months after filing, so the most recent one to two years in any patent dataset are always undercounted relative to their eventual true total. Every top-ranked assignee in this dataset shows a -100% year-over-year change in the latest year, which is consistent across the board and therefore points to reporting lag rather than a coordinated pullback. The realistic picture for recent-year activity will only sharpen as later publications continue to arrive.
Research Plasma Etching Process Technology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole plasma etching process technology 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.