https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/solid-liquid-interdiffusion-bonding-wafer-level-process-integration-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-26 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Semiconductors & Microelectronics

Solid-Liquid Interdiffusion Bonding Patents: Who's Filing Wafer-Level SLID

34 patent families and 85 records on solid-liquid interdiffusion wafer bonding, led by a single filer with 4 families.

85
Published Records
34
Simple Patent Families
20%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

85 published records collapse into 34 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 17 of 85 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 34 simple patent families and 85 published records sit behind this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • Robert Bosch GmbH holds the largest single row named on 4 of the 34 families (11.8%), with 26 of the 28 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families each.
  • 17 of 85 records were granted and still in force at retrieval, 20% of the published records in scope.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This search pulls records matching solid-liquid interdiffusion (SLID) wafer bonding terms combined with bonding or integration language, across 85 published records that de-duplicate to 34 simple patent families. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a chosen window. The filer list returned 28 organisations, counted in families, with individual inventors stripped out of that list but still present in every total and share quoted on this page.

At 34 families, this is a small pool. The numbers below describe what this particular search returned, not a map of the broader field or an industry-wide trend; treat the page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished picture.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH4
  2. CONSORZIO DELTA TI RES3
  3. MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP2
  4. HITACHI LTD2
  5. AXSUN TECHNOLOGIES INC1
  6. IFM ELECTRONIC GMBH1
  7. THE CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI1
  8. IBIDEN CO LTD1
  9. RAYTHEON CO1
  10. HANMISEMICONDUCTOR CO LTD1

Counted over all 85 published records, including filings from before 2008; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 64 records from 2008 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. 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; 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 28 of the 28 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 28 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 Solid-Liquid Interdiffusion Bonding Wafer Level Process Integration Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 34 families: when matching records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (64 of 85 published records)

Records counted by earliest filing year ran from 3 in 2008 to a peak of 13, reached in both 2015 and 2016. Years from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart as still filling in; publication lag of 18-30 months means the most recent years understate the eventual count, and no growth rate is shown because the data is too thin to support one.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (64 of 85 published records)048111532008201020122014131320162018202020222024020262022 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 2008-2026 (64 records); the 85 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition (share of 34 families)

H01L (semiconductor devices) appears on 25 of the 34 families, 73.5%, the highest share of any subclass tracked here. H10P follows at 7 families, 20.6%. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to more than 100%, and the chart shows 23 subclasses in total with the smaller branches included but not characterised here.

IPC subclass composition (share of 34 families)H01L · Semiconductor devices2573.5%H10P720.6%B81C · MEMS manufacturing411.8%H10N · Other electric solid-state dev…411.8%H10W411.8%G02B · Optical elements & systems38.8%B81B · Microstructural devices (MEMS)25.9%H10D · Semiconductor devices (general)25.9%Other1544.1%

Shares are the percentage of the 34 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 Solid-Liquid Interdiffusion Bonding Wafer Level Process Integration Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Solid-Liquid Interdiffusion Bonding Wafer Level Process Integration Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about solid-liquid interdiffusion bonding wafer level process integration patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Sample record

A record from the result set

First record returned, database default order
US20110233750A12011-09-29

Arrangement of Two Substrates having an SLID Bond and Method for Producing such an Arrangement

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

The abstract describes an arrangement of a first and second substrate connected by an SLID (solid-liquid interdiffusion) bond. The bond is described as exhibiting a first and a second metallic material, with the SLID bond comprising the intermetallic Al/Sn phase.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. What the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish that.

US20110233750A1, patent drawing 1US20110233750A1, 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 Solid-Liquid Interdiffusion Bonding Wafer Level Process Integration Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. 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 filer and technology data

Three figures worth sitting with before treating any ranking on this page as a conclusion.

Top filer
4 of 34 families
Robert Bosch GmbH

Largest single row in the filer list

Robert Bosch GmbH is named on 4 of the 34 simple patent families in scope, 11.8%. This is a single-row figure; filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and cannot be added to any other row's share.

Counted in simple patent families
Filer spread
26 of 28
listed filers

Most listed filers hold 2 families or fewer

26 of the 28 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows sum to 35 against 34 total families because one family can name more than one filer, so the rows overlap rather than add cleanly.

Counted in simple patent families
Legal status
17 of 85
records in force

Share granted and still in force at retrieval

17 of the 85 published records, 20%, were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. The remainder are not broken out into pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed categories on this page, and legal status changes continuously after the cut-off.

Counted in published records, status at 2026-10-26
IPC composition
73.5%
of 34 families

H01L carries the highest IPC share

H01L (semiconductor devices) appears on 25 of the 34 families in scope, the highest share of any subclass tracked. H10P follows at 7 families (20.6%). Because a family can carry multiple IPC classes these shares exceed 100% combined.

Counted in simple patent families
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 solid-liquid interdiffusion bonding wafer level process integration 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 Solid-Liquid Interdiffusion Bonding Wafer Level Process Integration Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next

Go deeper than this summary

This page is a starting point built from a single search string; the next steps below take the same data further.

Pull the full filer and family list

Export the complete set of 34 families and their 28 listed filers to check which ones relate to work you already track.

Open in Eureka →

Read claims on the records that matter

An abstract and a family count cannot tell you what a granted claim covers; pull the claim sets for the records closest to your own work.

Open in Eureka →

Refine the search string

A small pool like this one is sensitive to the exact terms used; broadening or narrowing the string can surface records this version misses.

Open 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 Solid-Liquid Interdiffusion Bonding Wafer Level Process Integration Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Questions practitioners ask about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Solid-Liquid Interdiffusion Bonding Wafer Level Process Integration Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Solid-Liquid Interdiffusion Bonding Wafer Level Process Integration Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole solid-liquid interdiffusion bonding wafer level process integration 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:(("solid-liquid interdiffusion" OR SLID) AND wafer AND (bonding OR integration))

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 73.5% 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 85 records and 34 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. 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 28 of the 28 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 28 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 2026-10-26.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (17 of 85). 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.

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.