https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/oled-pixel-definition-layer-patterning-process-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-28 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Electronics Manufacturing & Packaging

OLED Pixel Definition Layer Patterning Process Patents

591 families and 1,629 records on OLED/AMOLED pixel definition layer patterning, led by one filer at 21.2% with a long tail of smaller filers.

1,629
Published Records
591
Simple Patent Families
21%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
63%
In Force at Cut-off

1,629 published records collapse into 591 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO LTD is named on 125 of the 591 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 1,022 of 1,629 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 591 simple patent families and 1,629 published records sit behind this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • BOE Technology Group Co Ltd is named on 125 of the 591 families (21.2%), the largest single filer row, while 44 of the 85 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • H01L and H10K cover 73.1% and 61.4% of the 591 families respectively, the two technology subclasses with the highest shares in this dataset.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This landscape pulls every record matching OLED or AMOLED together with pixel definition layer or bank structure language, filtered to patterning and photolithography terms. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in. The result is 591 simple patent families, de-duplicated across countries, built from 1,629 published records counted one per publication.

Of those 1,629 records, 1,022 (63%) were granted and still in force at retrieval. That figure describes legal status at a single point in time, not a success rate, and it changes continuously as documents lapse, get renewed or are refused.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO LTD125
  2. SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO LTD94
  3. WUHAN CHINA STAR OPTOELECTRONICS SEMICONDUCTOR DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY CO LTD81
  4. SHENZHEN CHINA STAR OPTOELECTRONICS SEMICON DISPLAY TECH CO LTD51
  5. CHENGDU BOE OPTOELECTRONICS TECH CO LTD23
  6. TCL CHINA STAR OPTOELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY CO LTD22
  7. APPLE INC19
  8. MERCK PATENT GMBH12
  9. ANHUI SEMICON INTEGRATED DISPLAY TECH CO LTD11
  10. SUZHOU GOVISIONOX INNOVATION TECHNOLOGY CO LTD9

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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO LTD, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (15 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 30 of the 85 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 85 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 OLED Pixel Definition Layer Patterning Process Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-28. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 591-family dataset: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

Published records by earliest filing year run from 16 in 2007 to a peak of 190 in 2017. Filing volume measured this way moved from 158 records in 2018 to 161 in 2021, +2% over that span. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the most recent years understate eventual totals and should not be read as a decline.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)05010015020016200720092011201320151902017201920212023202552022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

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 2007-2026 (1,556 records); the 1,629 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

Technology composition by IPC subclass (share of 591 families)

H01L (semiconductor devices) appears on 73.1% of the 591 families and H10K (organic semiconductors, OLED etc.) on 61.4%. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to more than 100%; the chart lists all 44 subclasses found, of which these are the two with the largest shares.

Technology composition by IPC subclass (share of 591 families)H01L · Semiconductor devices43273.1%H10K · Organic semiconductors (OLED e…36361.4%G06F · Electric digital data processi…488.1%G09G · Display control circuits488.1%H10D · Semiconductor devices (general)386.4%H10P203.4%G02F · Optical control & modulation142.4%H10N · Other electric solid-state dev…132.2%Other11419.3%

Shares are the percentage of the 591 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 OLED Pixel Definition Layer Patterning Process Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-28. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on OLED Pixel Definition Layer Patterning Process Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about oled pixel definition layer patterning process patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

A record from the result set

First returned record
US10403694B22019-09-03

OLED substrate with corresponding pixel definition layer patterns

BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD.

The abstract describes an OLED substrate with a source-drain metal extending portion, a passivation layer with via holes at cathode contact regions, an anode metal extending portion connected through those via holes, and a pixel definition layer carrying first patterns (with a protrusion and a groove portion) in the display area and second patterns elsewhere.This is simply the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. Its granted claims are not reproduced here; what they actually require has to be read from the claim set itself.

US10403694B2, patent drawing 1US10403694B2, patent drawing 2
View record

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 OLED Pixel Definition Layer Patterning Process Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-28. 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
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 →
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 →
Insights

Reading the numbers

Three figures worth sitting with before filing or searching further in this space.

Filer concentration
21.2%
largest single filer row, of 591 families

One row at 125 of 591 families

BOE Technology Group Co Ltd is named on 125 of the 591 simple patent families in scope, the largest single filer row returned. Two further rows share the Samsung name and three further rows share a China Star Optoelectronics name; each is listed and counted separately, and this dataset does not support adding them together into one figure.

Counted in simple patent families.
Long tail
44 of 85
listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

Most listed filers hold very few families

Of the 85 filers returned by this search, 44 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The filer list excludes individually named inventors, who are still counted in the overall 591-family and 1,629-record totals, so the listed organisations do not account for the full set.

Counted in simple patent families; organisations.
Technology split
73.1% / 61.4%
H01L / H10K share of 591 families

Two subclasses cover most of the set

H01L (semiconductor devices) is carried on 73.1% of the 591 families and H10K (organic semiconductors) on 61.4%. Since one family can carry both classes, and others besides, these two figures overlap and do not sum to a combined coverage figure.

Share of 591 simple patent families; shares can exceed 100% in total because records carry multiple classes.
Legal status
63%
of 1,629 records granted and in force

1,022 of 1,629 records in force at retrieval

1,022 of the 1,629 published records in this set were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-28 retrieval date. The remainder cover pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable statuses, which are not broken out individually here.

Legal status at retrieval, not a measure of claim strength or quality.
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 oled pixel definition layer patterning process patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for OLED Pixel Definition Layer Patterning Process Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-28. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next

Where to take this next

This page reports what the search returned. Narrowing or verifying any of it is a separate step.

Check claim scope directly

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what any granted claim actually requires. Pull the granted claim set for any record before drawing a freedom-to-operate conclusion.

Open in Eureka →

Separate related-looking filer rows

Rows that share a name, such as the Samsung or China Star Optoelectronics entries here, are listed separately and are not rolled up to a parent group in this data. Treat each row's share as its own.

Explore filers in Eureka →

Re-run with a tighter date window

This search carries no date limit. Narrowing the filing-year range can isolate recent activity once the understated final years are excluded.

Refine the search in Eureka →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for OLED Pixel Definition Layer Patterning Process Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-28. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for OLED Pixel Definition Layer Patterning Process Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-28. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research OLED Pixel Definition Layer Patterning Process Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole oled pixel definition layer patterning process patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
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:(OLED OR AMOLED) AND ("pixel definition layer" OR "bank structure") AND (pattern* OR photolithograph*)

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. One subclass (H01L) carries 73.1% of the patent families, so this search returned a classification-tight set.

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 1,629 records and 591 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 (15 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 30 of the 85 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 85 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, and the growth figure stops at 2021. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-28.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (1,022 of 1,629). 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.

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.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.