Fastest
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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/multiple-patterning-litho-etch-litho-etch-process-sequence-control-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Semiconductors & MicroelectronicsMultiple Patterning Litho-Etch-Litho-Etch Process Sequence Control Patents
A 19-family dataset on LELE multiple-patterning sequence control, led by a single filer with a 21.1% family share.
40
Published Records
19
Simple Patent Families
40%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
40 published records collapse into 19 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 16 of 40 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 19 simple patent families and 40 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search string.
- Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd is named on 4 of the 19 families, a 21.1% share, the highest single-row share among the 14 listed filers.
- 12 of the 14 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, while 16 of the 40 records were granted and still in force at retrieval.
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page gathers records matching litho-etch-litho-etch, LELE and multiple patterning alongside process and sequence terms in title, abstract and claims text. The search returns 19 simple patent families drawn from 40 published records, with no start or end date applied to the query. Records cluster around photolithography and semiconductor device classifications, with a smaller group touching digital data processing.
19 families is a small pool. The figures here are a starting point for a more targeted search, not a map of the field, and a handful of documents either way would change several of the shares quoted below.
Records and families in scope
Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (7 here); that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 14 of the 14 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 14 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multiple Patterning Litho-Etch-Litho-Etch Process Sequence Control Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The data
Filing trend and technology composition
The two series below use different units and different scopes, read the notes under each chart before comparing them.
Filing trend by earliest filing year
Counted in published records (not de-duplicated into families), this series runs from 2008 (3 records) to a peak of 8 records in 2014. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so that stretch understates eventual totals and should not be read as a decline.
Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two. This chart covers 2008-2026 (38 records); the 40 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass composition
G03F (photolithography & photomechanics) and H01L (semiconductor devices) each appear on 8 of the 19 families (42.1%), with G06F (electric digital data processing) on 6 (31.6%) and H10P on 4 (21.1%). Families can carry more than one classification, so these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 19 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multiple Patterning Litho-Etch-Litho-Etch Process Sequence Control Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Multiple Patterning Litho-Etch-Litho-Etch Process Sequence Control Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about multiple patterning litho-etch-litho-etch process sequence control patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRecord in focus
A record from the result set
As returned by the search
Creating Metal Gate Structures Using Lithography-Etch-Lithography-Etch (LELE) Processing Sequences
TOKYO ELECTRON LIMITED
The invention can provide apparatus and methods of creating metal gate structures on wafers in real-time using Lithography-Etch-Lithography-Etch (LELE) processing sequence. Real-time data and/or historical data associated with LELE processing sequences can be fed forward and/or fed back as fixed variables or constrained variables in internal-Integrated-Metrology modules (i-IMM) to improve the accuracy of the metal gate structures.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citation, novelty or importance. Its abstract describes a metrology feedback approach to LELE sequencing for metal gate formation; what its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself.
Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multiple Patterning Litho-Etch-Litho-Etch Process Sequence Control Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Key figures
Reading the numbers
Each card below reports a single figure from the dataset and the unit it is counted in.
Scope
19 families / 40 records
families vs records
Two different counts for the same pool
The dataset holds 19 simple patent families and 40 published records. A family can publish in several countries or stages, so the record count is higher than the family count for the same set of inventions.
No date range was applied to the search string.
Largest filer
21.1%
share of 19 families
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd, 4 of 19 families
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd is named on 4 of the 19 families in scope, a 21.1% share. This is the only single-row share the page prints; filer rows are not added together because one family can name more than one filer.
14 organisations are listed; individual-inventor filings sit outside this list but remain in the totals.
Long tail
12 of 14
filers with 2 or fewer families
Most listed filers hold one or two families
12 of the 14 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. That count describes how spread the listed filers are; it is not a concentration figure and should not be combined with the leader's share.
The filer list returns organisations, up to 100 entities per search.
Legal status
16 of 40
records granted and in force
40% of records were in force at retrieval
16 of the 40 published records (40%) were granted and still in force at the point of retrieval. The remaining records fall into other statuses that are not broken out here, so no further split can be reported.
Legal status changes continuously and is a snapshot, not a success rate.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to multiple patterning litho-etch-litho-etch process sequence control patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multiple Patterning Litho-Etch-Litho-Etch Process Sequence Control Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Where to take this
This page is a starting point for a narrower search, not a finished map.
Pull the granted claims
Family counts and abstracts cannot establish claim scope. Read the granted claim set directly for any record you plan to act on.
Open in Patsnap EurekaRefine the search string
A 19-family pool is small enough that different phrasing could surface more or fewer records. Try narrower or broader term combinations before drawing conclusions.
Build a new search in Patsnap EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multiple Patterning Litho-Etch-Litho-Etch Process Sequence Control Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Questions practitioners ask
This dataset returns 19 simple patent families and 40 published records matching the search terms, with no date limit applied. The family count de-duplicates the same invention across countries, while the record count includes every publication stage and jurisdiction, which is why it is roughly double the family figure. Because the search string targets specific phrasing around LELE, multiple patterning and process sequencing, records using different terminology for the same technique may not be captured.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd is named on 4 of the 19 families in scope, a 21.1% share, the highest single-row figure among the 14 listed filers. 12 of those 14 filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because a single family can name more than one filer, so the listed rows overlap rather than partition the dataset.
Litho-etch-litho-etch is a double patterning technique that splits a target pattern across two lithography and two etch steps to achieve finer pitches than a single exposure allows. The example record in this dataset, US20100214545A1, describes using real-time and historical metrology data fed forward or back through LELE sequencing to improve metal gate structure accuracy. The abstract describes the approach only; what the granted claims cover has to be read from the claim set itself.
No growth rate is reported on this page. The filing trend by earliest filing year runs from 2008 through a peak of 8 published records in 2014, but records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, which understates recent years regardless of the underlying rate. With only 19 families in the full dataset, year-to-year moves are too small to read as a trend in either direction.
16 of the 40 published records (40%) were granted and still in force at the point of retrieval. The remaining 24 records fall into other statuses, pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed, that are not broken out individually in this dataset. Legal status is a snapshot at the retrieval date and changes continuously, so it should not be read as a measure of quality or commercial success.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multiple Patterning Litho-Etch-Litho-Etch Process Sequence Control Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Multiple Patterning Litho-Etch-Litho-Etch Process Sequence Control Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole multiple patterning litho-etch-litho-etch process sequence control patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("litho-etch-litho-etch" OR LELE OR "multiple patterning") AND process AND sequence*)Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field.
What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 40 records and 19 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.
Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list (7 of them here). Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 14 of the 14 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 14 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included
Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-27.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (16 of 40). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka
Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level
Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.
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 limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. 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, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records 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.
The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.