SiC Wafer Slicing Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- One assignee holds 80 of 97 records in scope concentration that leaves the remaining five ranked companies filing in the single digits.
- Filing rose 50% from 2021 to 2024 the last year the dataset treats as complete, before publication lag understates 2025-2026.
- H01L and B23K each cover roughly half the corpus while crystal-growth class C30B sits near a fifth, and ceramics-related C04B stays under 5%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (6 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 97 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent activity in SiC wafer slicing and surface preparation — the methods used to part crystalline silicon carbide boules into wafers and prepare their surfaces for device fabrication. The search string combines slicing routes (laser slicing, mechanical wafer slicing) with the defect and finishing concerns that determine yield: kerf loss, subsurface damage, chemical mechanical planarization, atomic step terraces, grinding force and thickness variation.
The scope runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, covering 97 published records held across a ranking of 6 assignees. Because families neutralise duplicate continuation and multi-jurisdiction filings, family-level counts here are the fairer read of where claim activity actually sits.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 97 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims fall under.
Filing trend
Annual filings moved from 0 in 2017 to a peak of 31 in 2019, then continued at a lower but rising pace — 2021 to 2024 alone grew 50%, from 6 to 9 filings. 2026 shows only 3 filings so far, but that reflects the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication rather than a real slowdown.
IPC composition
H01L (semiconductor devices) and B23K (welding, soldering & brazing — covering laser and bonding-based parting methods) each appear in roughly half of all 97 records, with H10P and B28D (working stone, covering mechanical slicing and grinding) close behind. Crystal growth (C30B) appears in about a fifth of records, while non-metallic compounds (C01B) and ceramics (C04B) each stay under 6%, an early signal of how thin coverage is once the process moves past slicing into feedstock and downstream ceramic processing.
Shares are the percentage of the 97 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on SiC Wafer Slicing and Surface Preparation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about sic wafer slicing and surface preparation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Carrier-Assisted Method for Parting Crystalline Material Along Laser Damage Region
The claim joins a SiC substrate to a rigid carrier over 800 micrometres thick using an adhesive with a glass transition temperature above 25°C, with a subsurface laser damage region set at a controlled depth. Fracturing along that damage region — promoted by mechanical force applied near a carrier edge — separates a bonded assembly of carrier plus crystalline layer from the remaining boule.Filed by Cree, Inc.; published 2026-07-23.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4946547A | Method of preparing silicon carbide surfaces for crystal growth | 1,250 |
| 2 | US10576585B1 | Laser-assisted method for parting crystalline material | 53 |
| 3 | US10611052B1 | Silicon carbide wafers with relaxed positive bow and related methods | 46 |
| 4 | US10562130B1 | Laser-assisted method for parting crystalline material | 43 |
| 5 | US20180290893A1 | SiC VOLUMETRIC SHAPES AND METHODS OF FORMING BOULES | 30 |
| 6 | US11219966B1 | Laser-assisted method for parting crystalline material | 21 |
| 7 | US20200316724A1 | Laser-assisted method for parting crystalline material | 17 |
| 8 | WO2018183585A1 | Sic volumetric shapes and methods of forming boules | 17 |
| 9 | US20220126395A1 | Laser-assisted method for parting crystalline material | 16 |
| 10 | WO2020136624A2 | Laser-assisted method for parting crystalline material | 15 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations inside this searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on the field, not 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 numbers mean for filing strategy
Three findings that shape where a new filing would land and how contested that ground already is.
One assignee sets the boundary of the field
A single company holds 80 of the 97 records in this landscape, with the next four ranked assignees making up most of the rest — the top five combined reach 96 records, or 99.0% of all records in scope. Anyone filing here is filing around one dominant claim estate, not into an open field.
Growth is real but concentrated in the leader
Filing volume grew 50% from 2021 to 2024, the last span the dataset treats as complete. Recent-year momentum data shows that growth tracking almost entirely to the leading assignee, which posted +200% year-on-year in the latest year while several other ranked assignees show no activity at all in that period.
Slicing and bonding classes dominate; feedstock and ceramics lag
H01L and B23K each sit near or above half of all 97 records, and B28D (mechanical grinding/working stone) covers close to a third. Crystal growth (C30B) and the ceramics/refractories class (C04B) are far thinner at 21.6% and 4.1% respectively, marking where claim density drops off sharply.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to sic wafer slicing and surface preparation, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where it thins out
The ranking is short and top-heavy: six companies account for every record in scope, and one of them accounts for most of the volume.
The dominant filer sets the terms of the field
The leading assignee's 80 records dwarf the next-largest holder in this six-company ranking. Filing here means either designing clearly outside that estate's claim scope or accepting a freedom-to-operate review before committing engineering resources.
The rest of the ranking files thinly and unevenly
Below the leader, the remaining five ranked assignees hold single-digit counts each, with the fifth-place holder at just 2 records. Several show zero activity in the latest year, suggesting filing interest outside the leader has cooled or shifted rather than accelerated.
Foundational surface-preparation art still anchors the field
The most-cited record in this landscape, on preparing SiC surfaces for crystal growth, carries far more citations than any other entry in the table. That gap reflects age and foundational status inside this searched corpus more than current commercial weight.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Wolfspeed Semiconductor Co., Ltd. | 3 | +200% |
| Paridus Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Ascatron AB | 0 | — |
| University of Virginia Patent Foundation | 0 | — |
| II-VI Advanced Materials, LLC | 0 | — |
| FARAH JOHN | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The dataset points to a narrow, top-heavy field with specific gaps still open for new claims.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader
With one assignee holding 80 of 97 records, any new slicing or surface-prep filing should start with a scope check against that estate before engineering time is committed.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaProbe the under-claimed branches
Feedstock-stage crystal growth and ceramics/refractory finishing show materially thinner IPC coverage than the dominant slicing classes — a plausible place to stake new claim territory.
Map white space in EurekaTrack the 2025-2026 filing window as it fills in
Publication lag means the last two years understate real filing activity; revisit this trend once 2025 filings finish publishing.
Set a filing alert in EurekaCommon questions on SiC wafer slicing patents
One assignee holds 80 of the 97 records in this landscape, making it by far the dominant filer in the field. The next four ranked assignees combined bring the top five to 96 records, or 99.0% of all records in scope, leaving only a single record outside that group among the six companies tracked. This concentration means most freedom-to-operate work in this space starts with reviewing that one company's claim estate.
Filing grew 50% between 2021 and 2024, the last span the dataset treats as complete, rising from 6 to 9 filings. The peak year on record so far is 2019 with 31 filings. Figures for 2025 and 2026 look lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than an actual decline, so those years should not yet be read as a slowdown.
The two most common IPC subclasses are H01L (semiconductor devices), appearing in 55.7% of the 97 records, and B23K (welding, soldering and brazing, which covers laser and bonding-based parting methods) at 51.5%. B28D, covering mechanical grinding and working stone, appears in 30.9% of records. Crystal growth (C30B) and ceramics/refractories (C04B) are much thinner, at 21.6% and 4.1% respectively, marking the parts of the process chain with lighter claim coverage.
This filing, from Cree, Inc. and published 2026-07-23, claims a carrier-assisted method for parting SiC along a subsurface laser damage region, specifying a rigid carrier over 800 micrometres thick bonded with an adhesive whose glass transition temperature exceeds 25°C, and fracturing promoted by mechanical force near a carrier edge. It does not block laser-slicing methods generally; it blocks this specific combination of carrier thickness, adhesive property and fracture-promotion technique. A design-around would need to vary the carrier bonding approach, the adhesive thermal property, or the fracture-initiation method rather than the underlying use of a subsurface laser damage region.
The clearest gaps sit in classes with visibly lower filing density than the dominant slicing and bonding classes: crystal-growth integration (C30B, 21.6% of records) and ceramics/refractory finishing (C04B, 4.1% of records) are both thin relative to H01L and B23K. Kerf-loss reduction techniques specific to laser slicing and atomic-step-terrace control after slicing are also areas the search terms surface without dense coverage in the ranking. These are reasonable starting points for a novelty search before committing to a filing strategy.
Research SiC Wafer Slicing and Surface Preparation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole sic wafer slicing and surface preparation 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.