Transparent Display Simulation Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- Filing already peaked. Activity crested at 13 families in 2021 and has declined since, with the 2022 midpoint at 7 — this is a maturing claim space, not a growing one.
- Two IPC classes tie for the lead. H01L (semiconductor devices) and H10K (organic semiconductors/OLED) each carry 26 of the 76 families, ahead of G02F optical modulation at 22 — the contest is split between device structure and optical-control claims.
- US filings dominate the record. 57 of 76 families were filed at the USPTO versus 12 via PCT and single-digit counts elsewhere, so most enforceable rights in this space sit under US jurisdiction.
What this landscape covers
Transparent display simulation and modeling covers the optical and electrical modeling work behind see-through and transparent OLED displays: transmittance simulation, pixel circuit modeling, and the optical stack calculations that determine how much of the background a viewer sees through an active display. This is distinct from general display fabrication patents — the claims here center on how a device is simulated, calculated or optically modeled before or during operation, not just how it is built.
The 76 families in this dataset span filings from 2015 through the current data cut-off, concentrated in semiconductor device structure (H01L, H10K) and optical control (G02F, G02B), with a smaller but consistent presence in display driving circuitry (G09G). Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent filing year is understated in any trend line.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 76-family dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how those filings split across International Patent Classification subclasses.
A peak already behind us
Filings rose from 4 in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2021, then eased back through the 2022 midpoint of 7. That shape — rise, peak, decline — points to a technology area where the core simulation methods have largely been staked out rather than one still attracting fresh entrants.
Split between device and optics
H01L and H10K each account for 26 of 76 families, reflecting emphasis on the semiconductor and OLED device structures being simulated. G02F (22) and G02B (15) cover the optical modulation and optical-element side of the same problem, while G09G (11) captures the display-control circuitry that ties the two together.
Shares are the percentage of the 76 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Transparent Display Simulation and Modeling with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about transparent display simulation and modeling and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art
Transparent display device and container
The present disclosure provides a transparent display device, including a transparent display panel and at least one full color light source. The transparent display panel includes a first substrate and a second substrate provided opposite to each other, and a polymer liquid crystal mixed layer located therebetween. The light source is located at a side of the first substrate distal to the second substrate, and an orthographic projection of the light source on a plane where the first substrate is located is outside the first substrate. The light source is configured to emit light of at least two colors toward the transparent display panel in a time division manner.Filed by Beijing BOE Technology Development Co., Ltd. — illustrates the device-plus-container claim pattern common among Chinese panel makers in this dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20070222922A1 | Graded contrast enhancing layer for use in displays | 99 |
| 2 | US7705943B2 | LCD device having vertically aligned liquid crystal layer between first and second substrates in which the fi… | 80 |
| 3 | US20170045742A1 | Placement of a computer generated display with focal plane at finite distance using optical devices and a see… | 71 |
| 4 | US20150228850A1 | Transparent quantum dot light-emitting diodes with dielectric/metal/dielectric electrode | 56 |
| 5 | US20050140916A1 | Liquid crystal display device and fabrication method therefor | 48 |
| 6 | US10007115B2 | Placement of a computer generated display with focal plane at finite distance using optical devices and a see… | 31 |
| 7 | US7385660B2 | Liquid crystal display device for transflector having opening in a first electrode for forming a liquid cryst… | 25 |
| 8 | US4622771A | Communication display device | 17 |
| 9 | US20190310456A1 | Display panel and display device | 16 |
| 10 | US9419174B2 | Transparent quantum dot light-emitting diodes with dielectric/metal/dielectric electrode | 15 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favor older records — read them as a signal of influence on later filings, not as a measure 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 read-outs from the trend, jurisdiction and citation data that matter for anyone deciding where to file or where to look for prior art.
A declining curve, not a rising one
The peak year of 13 families in 2021 has not been matched since, and the 2022 midpoint of 7 shows the retreat is not a single-year dip. New entrants should expect dense prior art in the core simulation methods rather than open ground.
US-centric enforcement
The United States accounts for the large majority of filings, with WIPO (PCT) a distant second at 12 and the UK, EPO and India each in single digits. Freedom-to-operate work for this technology should start with US prosecution history.
Older LCD-era art still anchors the field
The most-cited record in the corpus concerns a graded contrast-enhancing layer, and several of the highest-cited filings predate the transparent-OLED wave entirely. That reflects citation counts favoring older records inside a searched corpus, not that LCD-era techniques still define the frontier.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to transparent display simulation and modeling, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| The Trustees of Princeton University | WISCH JESSE ALEXANDER | 3 |
| The Trustees of Princeton University | RAND BARRY PATRICK | 3 |
| The Trustees of Princeton University | LIU XIAO | 3 |
| WISCH JESSE ALEXANDER | RAND BARRY PATRICK | 3 |
| WISCH JESSE ALEXANDER | LIU XIAO | 3 |
| BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. | Beijing BOE Technology Development Co., Ltd. | 2 |
| BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. | Beijing BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. | 2 |
| BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. | Hefei BOE Display Technology Co., Ltd. | 1 |
Only 8 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest ties all involve one university research office paired separately with three individual named inventors — a pattern typical of academic labs prosecuting jointly with their own researchers rather than of corporate joint ventures.
Who is active, and where the gaps are
Recent-year momentum across the named assignees in this dataset is flat: every one of the tracked organizations shows zero families in the latest year, consistent with the broader post-2021 decline in filing volume.
No active filer in the most recent year
Organizations including BOE, Japan Display, Pioneer, Sharp, Canon and the University of Florida Research Foundation each show zero filings in the latest tracked year. Given the 18-month publication lag, this understates true current activity, but it confirms the sector has cooled from its 2021 peak.
A long tail behind a few repeat filers
With only 8 co-assignee pairs identified across 76 families, most filings in this space are single-assignee efforts. The strongest collaborative signal centers on one university's technology-transfer office pairing with named individual inventors rather than corporate partners.
Filers cluster around US prosecution
The receiving-office split — 57 US, 12 PCT, single digits elsewhere — means most named assignees, whether US, Japanese or Chinese, are routing their core claims through the USPTO first.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Japan Display Inc. | 0 | — |
| Pioneer Corporation | 0 | — |
| Sharp Corporation | 0 | — |
| Canon Inc. | 0 | — |
| University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Real Fiction Laboratory Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Dakri LLC | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to a mature but not abandoned field. These next steps help translate the landscape into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision.
Check the H01L/H10K boundary
With device-structure classes carrying half the corpus between them, a claim that straddles semiconductor structure and OLED-specific optical behavior needs checking against both classes separately.
Explore IPC breakdownWatch for a filing rebound
Because publication lag understates the most recent one to two years, confirm whether 2024-2025 filings are catching up before concluding the sector has permanently cooled.
Review filing trendPrioritize US prior art search
Given 57 of 76 families sit at the USPTO, a freedom-to-operate search should exhaust US prosecution history before extending to PCT or EPO records.
See jurisdiction dataCommon questions about this landscape
It is a filing directed at the optical or electrical modeling used to design or operate a see-through or transparent OLED display, such as transmittance simulation, pixel circuit modeling, or optical-stack calculation. This is narrower than general transparent-display fabrication patents, which cover the physical device rather than the modeling method. In this dataset the distinguishing IPC classes are G02F and G02B for optical modeling alongside H01L and H10K for the underlying device structure being modeled.
The dataset tracks a small group of repeat filers including major Asian display manufacturers and OLED research organizations, but every one of them shows zero filings in the most recent tracked year. That flat recent momentum, combined with a filing peak in 2021, suggests no single assignee is currently pulling ahead; the field looks more like a settled set of prior filers than an active race.
No — filings rose from 4 in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2021, then fell back to 7 by the 2022 midpoint, and recent-year momentum across tracked assignees sits at zero. Publication lag of roughly 18 months means the very latest year is always undercounted, so a modest rebound could still be hiding in unpublished applications, but the multi-year trend through 2022 is clearly downward rather than upward.
The core device-structure and optical-modulation classes (H01L, H10K, G02F) are dense, but adjacent branches such as time-division color-sequential light source control, transmittance simulation for curved or foldable substrates, and non-electric transparent light source integration under F21K carry far fewer families. A first claim in one of these areas would need to tie the specific optical or circuit modeling step to one of these thinner sub-areas rather than restating the general transparent-display concept.
The United States is by far the dominant filing venue, with 57 of the 76 tracked families filed there compared to 12 filed via the PCT route and single-digit counts in the UK, Europe and India. Anyone doing freedom-to-operate work on transparent display simulation methods should treat US prosecution history as the primary search target, then extend to PCT family members before checking the smaller European and Indian filings.
Research Transparent Display Simulation and Modeling in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole transparent display simulation and modeling 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.