Sputtering Target Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing has cooled since its 2017 peak. 22 filings that year against 11 at the 2022 midpoint and a single filing in the most recent (partial) year — publication lag means the last year or two will fill in, but the multi-year decline predates that lag.
- Claims cluster hard around coating and discharge-tube IPC codes. 910 of 914 families sit in C23C alone, with H01J (294) and C22C (162) the next-heaviest overlaps — alloy composition and electron-tube integration are where the crowding compounds.
- The most-cited prior art is two decades old. The top-cited record, on ionized physical vapor deposition, carries 503 citations and dates back to the early 2000s — current filers are still designing around foundational bonding and deposition claims, not newer ones.
Filing growth compares 2021 (10 records) with 2024 (4) — 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 914 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 914 patent families filed between 2015 and 2026 under a search built around sputtering target, PVD target and sputter target material claims, cross-referenced against IPC codes for coating deposition, alloy composition and thin-film metallurgy. The corpus spans United States, European, PCT, Japanese, South Korean and Chinese filings, giving a cross-jurisdiction view of where target manufacturing and bonding technology has been protected rather than just where it originated.
Because sputtering targets sit at the intersection of materials science and semiconductor process equipment, the same invention often gets classified under coating (C23C), electron-tube (H01J) and semiconductor (H01L) codes simultaneously. That overlap is itself informative: it marks where a target composition claim is inseparable from the deposition tool or the chip process it feeds, and therefore where freedom-to-operate work has to check multiple IPC families at once.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 914 families: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings peaked at 22 in 2017 and fell to roughly half that by the 2022 midpoint (11), with a single filing recorded in the most recent, still-partial year. Treat the final one to two years as undercounted rather than as evidence of collapse — publication typically lags filing by around 18 months — but the multi-year slide from 2017 to 2022 is real and predates that lag.
IPC subclass distribution
C23C (coating and surface deposition) appears in 910 of 914 families, effectively the whole corpus. H01J (electron and discharge tubes, 294) and C22C (alloys, 162) are the two largest secondary clusters, followed by H01L (semiconductor devices, 127), B22F (powder metallurgy, 97), H10P (83), C04B (ceramics, 54) and C22F (non-ferrous metal treatment, 51) — a tail that marks where target technology borders powder processing and ceramics rather than pure metallurgy.
Shares are the percentage of the 914 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Sputtering Target Technology Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about sputtering target technology landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
US20050230244A1 — Sputter target material and method of producing the same
A sintered sputter target material combining 0.5 to 50 atomic % of one or more metal elements (Ti, Zr, V, Nb or Cr) with a Mo balance, defined by a microstructure where oxide particles sit near the boundary of each metal-element island and the maximum enclosed island area does not exceed 1.0 mm² at a cross-section perpendicular to the sputtering surface.Filed by Hitachi Metals, Ltd., published 2005-10-20.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20020104751A1 | Method and apparatus for ionized physical vapor deposition | 503 |
| 2 | US7052584B2 | Method of forming a capacitor | 420 |
| 3 | US5693203A | Sputtering target assembly having solid-phase bonded interface | 256 |
| 4 | US6331233B1 | Tantalum sputtering target with fine grains and uniform texture and method of manufacture | 247 |
| 5 | US6287435B1 | Method and apparatus for ionized physical vapor deposition | 207 |
| 6 | US5252194A | Rotating sputtering apparatus for selected erosion | 194 |
| 7 | US5565071A | Integrated sputtering target assembly | 146 |
| 8 | US20030052000A1 | Fine grain size material, sputtering target, methods of forming, and micro-arc reduction method | 133 |
| 9 | US6506289B2 | Planar optical devices and methods for their manufacture | 122 |
| 10 | US5433835A | Sputtering device and target with cover to hold cooling fluid | 117 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings simply because they've had longer to accumulate references — read this as a map of foundational influence, not of current filing priority.
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 read-outs from the trend, IPC and citation data that matter more than the raw counts on their own.
The category has cooled from its high point
Filing volume roughly halved between the 2017 peak and the 2022 midpoint, and the most recent year shows a single filing on record. Some of that drop is publication lag, but a multi-year decline through the midpoint is a real signal that the core composition and bonding claim space has been substantially staked out.
Coating deposition is the whole corpus, not a segment of it
Nearly every family in this dataset touches C23C, meaning differentiation has to happen inside that subclass — through alloy composition (C22C, 162 families), tube/chamber integration (H01J, 294) or semiconductor-process fit (H01L, 127) — rather than by filing outside it.
Foundational ionized-PVD and bonding patents still govern design-around work
The most-cited record in the corpus concerns ionized physical vapor deposition and dates from the early 2000s; the next several cover capacitor formation and solid-phase bonded target assemblies from a similarly early period. New filers are working in the shadow of two-decade-old foundational claims more than of recent ones.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to sputtering target technology landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is active, and where the field is thinning
Recent-year momentum is muted across the named assignees, with only one showing any activity in the latest year on record — consistent with the broader filing slowdown rather than a single company pulling back.
Only one tracked assignee filed in the most recent year
Among the assignees with recent-year momentum data, only one recorded a filing in the latest year; the rest, including several of the more established names in the space, show zero filings in that window. That is consistent with the overall decline from the 2017 peak rather than isolated retreat by any one filer.
Co-assignment is concentrated in a small number of recurring pairings
Ten co-assignee pairs appear across the corpus, with the strongest pairing appearing 10 times and two other pairings each appearing 6 times. These recurring inventor-assignee links point to stable internal teams rather than broad cross-company collaboration.
Even established names show a full-stop drop in the latest year
At least one long-tenured assignee shows a -100% year-over-year change alongside zero filings in the latest recorded year, reinforcing that the slowdown is broad-based across the field rather than concentrated in newer or smaller entrants.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Tosoh SMD, Inc. | 1 | — |
| Applied Materials, Inc. | 0 | — |
| JX Nippon Mining & Metals Corporation | 0 | — |
| Praxair Surface Technologies, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Cabot Corporation | 0 | — |
| Honeywell International Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| H.C. Starck GmbH | 0 | — |
| Heraeus | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a mature, densely claimed core with a thinner tail worth checking before committing R&D or filing budget.
Check freedom-to-operate against the foundational citations
The highest-cited records in this corpus, on ionized PVD and solid-phase bonded target assemblies, are two decades old and still structurally relevant. Any new bonding or deposition-integration claim should be checked against them first.
Explore prior art in EurekaTest the under-claimed branches before the core
H10P, C04B and C22F carry a fraction of the filing density that C23C does. That gap is where a narrowly drafted composition or process claim is more likely to clear examination without heavy prior-art collision.
Run a white-space search in EurekaWatch for the publication-lag catch-up
The apparent single-filing latest year will fill in as pending applications publish. Re-checking the trend in six to twelve months will give a truer read on whether the 2017–2022 decline has bottomed out.
Track filing trends in EurekaCommon questions about sputtering target patents
This dataset ranks 914 patent families by assignee, and the ranking table on this page shows the current order rather than a fixed leaderboard, since positions shift as new families publish. What's clear from the recent-year momentum data is that several long-established assignees, including large materials and equipment suppliers, show zero filings in the most recent year, so historical volume leadership does not necessarily mean current activity leadership. Anyone assessing a market position should look at both the cumulative family count and the recent-year momentum column together.
Filing fell from 22 in 2017 to about half that at the 2022 midpoint, and the decline shows up well before the most recent one to two years, which are understated anyway because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. A genuine multi-year decline through the midpoint suggests the core composition and bonding claim space, particularly around C23C coating deposition, had already become densely occupied, reducing the room for new, clearly novel filings. It does not mean the underlying manufacturing technology stopped advancing, only that patent claim activity in this specific search scope slowed.
Bonded target assemblies, where a sputtering material is solid-phase bonded to a backing plate, are covered by some of the most heavily cited prior art in this corpus, including a foundational record on solid-phase bonded interface assemblies. Monolithic or grain-controlled targets, by contrast, tend to be claimed through composition and microstructure limitations, as in the representative Hitachi Metals filing on oxide-particle-bounded metal islands. Both approaches show up across the C22C alloy and C23C coating subclasses, so a design-around analysis needs to check both claim styles rather than assuming one displaces the other.
C23C, covering coating and surface deposition, appears in 910 of the 914 families in this dataset, making it effectively mandatory to search. H01J (electron and discharge tubes) and C22C (alloys) are the next-largest overlaps, at 294 and 162 families respectively, reflecting how often target claims are tied to the deposition chamber or to alloy composition. A thorough search should also sweep H01L, B22F, C04B and C22F, since together they capture the semiconductor-process, powder-metallurgy and ceramics-adjacent filings that a C23C-only search would miss.
The IPC tail in this corpus, H10P at 83 families, C04B (ceramics) at 54, and C22F (non-ferrous treatment) at 51, carries a fraction of the density seen in C23C, suggesting lighter claim coverage in ceramic-composite target sintering and post-treatment processes for target recycling or reconditioning. Large-area target uniformity for display-glass PVD and grain-controlled microstructure work also sit in comparatively less crowded territory relative to the core coating claims. These are reasonable starting points for a narrower novelty search, though each still needs a dedicated freedom-to-operate check before committing filing budget.
Research Sputtering Target Technology Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole sputtering target technology landscape 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.