From Technologies to Market

MicroLED Displays 2018

Sample Courtesy of © 2018 © 2017 OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About µLED Displays! • Understand the Current Status of the µLED Display Technologies: • What are microLED? What are the key benefits? How do they differ from other display technologies? What are the cost drivers? • What are the remaining roadblocks? How challenging are they? • Detailed analysis of key technological nodes: epitaxy, die structure and manufacturing, front plane structure and display designs, Deep color conversion, backplanes, massively parallel pick and place and continuous assembly processes, hybridization, defect understanding management, light extraction and beam shaping. of the technology, • Which applications could µLED display address and when? current status • Detailed analysis of major display applications: TV, , wearables, augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR/MR), laptops and prospects, and tablets, monitors, large LED video displays... roadblocks • What are the cost targets for major applications? How do they impact technology, design and process choices? and key players. • How disruptive for incumbent technologies: LCD, OLED, LCOS… • MicroLED display application roadmap, forecast and SWOT analysis • Competitive Landscape and Supply chain • Identify key players in technology development and manufacturing.Who owns the IP? • Potential impact on the LED supply chain: epimakers, MOCVD reactor and substrate suppliers. • Potential impact on the display chain: LCD and OLED panel makers. • Scenario for a µLED display supply chain. MicroLED Displays | Sample | 2 Biography & contact

EricVirey - Principal Analyst,Technology & Market, Sapphire & Display Dr. Eric Virey serves as a Senior Market and Technology Analyst at Yole Développement (Yole), within the Photonic & Sensing & Display division. Eric is a daily contributor to the development of LED, OLED, and Displays activities, with a large collection of market and technology reports as well as multiple custom consulting projects. Thanks to its deep technical knowledge and industrial expertise, Eric has spoken in more than 30 industry conferences worldwide over the last 5 years. He has been interviewed and quoted by leading media over the world. Previously Eric has held various R&D, engineering, manufacturing and business development positions with Fortune 500 Company Saint-Gobain in France and the United States. Dr. Eric Virey holds a Ph-D in Optoelectronics from the National Polytechnic Institute of Grenoble.

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 3 COMPANIES CITED IN THE REPORT

Aixtron (DE), Aledia (FR), Allos Semiconductor (DE), AMEC (CN), Apple (US), AUO (TW), BOE (CN), CEA-LETI (FR), CIOMP (CN), Columbia University (US), Cooledge (CA), Cree (US), CSOT (CN), eLux (US), eMagin (US), Epistar (TW), Epson (JP), Facebook (US), Foxconn (TW), Fraunhofer Institute (DE), glō (SE), GlobalFoundries (US), Goertek (CN), Google (US), Hiphoton (TW), HKUST (HK), HTC (TW), Ignis (CA), InfiniLED (UK), Intel (US), ITRI (TW), Jay Bird Display (HK), Kansas State University (US), KIMM (KR), Kookmin U. (KR), Kopin (US), LG (KR), LightWave Photonics Inc (US), Lumens (KR), Lumiode (US), LuxVue (US), Metavision (US), Microsoft (US), Mikro Mesa (TW), mLED (UK), MIT (US), NAMI (HK), Nanosys (US), NCTU (TW), Nichia (JP), Nth Degree (US), NuFlare (JP), Oculus (US), Optovate (UK), Osterhout Design Group (US), Osram (DE), Ostendo (US), PlayNitride (TW), PSI Co (KR), QMAT (US), Rohinni (US), Saitama University (JP), (KR), Sanan (CN), SelfArray (US), Semprius (US), Smart Equipment Technology (FR), Seoul Semiconductor (KR), Sharp (JP), Sony (JP), Strathclyde University (UK), SUSTech (CN), Sun Yat-sen University (TW), Sxaymiq Technologies (US), Tesoro (US), Texas Tech (US), Tianma (CN), TSMC (TW), Tyndall National Institute (IE), Uniqarta (US), U. Of Hong Kong (HK), U. of Illinois (US), Veeco (US), VerLASE (US), V-Technology (JP), VueReal (CA), (US), X- Celeprint (IE)…and more.

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Executive summary p10 • Cycle time and thickness • Blue shift • Introduction to microLED displays p51 • Wafer flatness • Definition and history • GaN-based red chips • What is a microLED display? • Conclusions and impact on supply chain • Comparisons with LCD and OLED • Assembly • Chip manufacturing and singulation (FE Level 1) p96 • Display structure • MicroLED singulation p97 • SWOT analysis • Impact on cost related to the epiwafer • MicroLED display manufacturing yields p63 • Illustrations • Overview • MicroLED efficiency p104 • Individual die testing. • LED and microLED efficiency • KGD mapping and individual transfer • Development thrust areas • Transfer fields and interposers • Current confinement structures • Defect management strategies • Status • Yield roadmap • MicroLED chip manufacturing p112 • Redundancy • Example of process flow – Apple 6 masks • Conclusions • Lithography • MicroLED epitaxy (FE Level 0) p79 • Fab types comparison: infrastructure & equipment • Wafer size • MicroLED in CMOS fabs • Wavelength homogeneity • Transfer and assembly technologies p124 • Epitaxy defects

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Overview p125 • Example: Sharp/ELUX • Major types and key attributes of transfer processes • Summary p154 • Challenges • Intellectual property landscape • Pick and place processes p129 • Selectivity • Sequence and challenges • Major transfer processes: most mature • Transfer sequences • Transfer processes: others • Transfer array Vs. display pitch • Conclusion • Throughput and cost drivers • Transfer and assembly equipment p165 • Direct transfer vs. interposer • Introduction • Interposer and yields • Traditional single chip tools • Other use of interposers. • Assembly environment • Example (X-CeLeprint) • Specific challenge for mass transfer • Continuous/ semi-continuous assembly p141 • Bulk microLED arrays p171 • Overview • Full array level microdisplay manufacturing. • Laser-based sequential transfer • Hybridization & bonding process • QMAT-TESORO • Wafer level bonding • Uniqarta • Monolithic integration of LTPS TFT: lumiode • GLO • 3D integration: Ostendo • Optovate • Yields and costs • Self assembly p150 • Color generation in bulk arrays • Fluidic self assembly

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Pixel repair p183 • Analog driving: microLED driving regime • Emitter redundancy • MicroLED-specific challenges • Example of repair strategies • Illustration: 75” 4K TV, QHD • Defect management strategies • Digital driving: introduction • Digital driving: benefits & challenges • Light extraction and beam shaping p189 • Hybrid driving • Optical crosstalk • Analog Vs digital: summary • Emission pattern, viewing angle and power consumption • TFT versus discrete micro IC. • Emission pattern and color mixing • Cost zspects • Die-level light management • Cost reduction path • Array-level beam shaping • Conclusions • Color conversion p204 • Economics of microLED – cost down paths p240 • Overview • Baseline hypothesis and sensitivity • Phosphors • Quantum dots • p247 • Flux requirements • Cost target and price elasticity • Patterning and deposition • 75” TV panel assembly strategies • Yield impact • Backplanes and pixel driving p214 • Very large panels • Introduction • Benefit of sequential transfer • Channel materials for microLED displays • Interposers • Mobility vs display specifications • Die size • Stability and signal distortion • Cost-down path • Pixel density

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Smartphones p265 • Smartphones p294 • Cost target • Who can afford a smartphone? • Illustration: 6” QHD phone panel • Smartphone panel volume forecast • Key outputs • Mobile phones: display for differentiation • Die size optimization • Foldable smartphones • Interposers • MicroLED adoption and volume forecast • Applications and markets for microLED displays p277 • TVs p301 • MicroLED attributes vs application requirement • The “Better Pixel” • Application roadmap • Resolution • SWOT per application • TV panel forecast • Key hypothesis for equipment forecast • 8K adoption • 2017-2027 microLED adoption forecast • MicroLED adoption and panel volume forecast • AR, MR andVR p284 • Others: tablets, laptops, monitors p310 • The reality-to-virtual-reality continuum. • Overview • Market volume headset forecasts for VR and aR • Tablets • MicroLED adoption and volume forecast • Laptop and convertibles • Head up displays • Desktop monitors • p290 • Wafer and equipment forecast p315 • volume forecast • Epiwafer • MicroLED Adoption and volume forecast • MOCVD • Transfer equipment

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Competitive landscape p322 • Time evolution of patent publications • Leading patent applicants • What happened In the last 18 months • Time evolution of patent applications per company • Breakdown by company headquarters • Positioning of established panel makers • Breakdown by company type • Supply chain p332 • Overview • Capex aspects • Supply chain requirement • Front END (LED Manufacturing) • Back end: backplane, assembly and module. • Supply chain scenarios • Intellectual property • Conclusion

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 9 SCOPE OF THE REPORT

TV Contrary to the 2017 edition, this report does not Smartwatches and cover applications in large wearables LG LED videowalls: those will be

Smartphones discussed extensively in our This report upcoming report on provides an Apple miniLED applications and extensive review Virtual reality technologies of µLED display Samsung technologies and Large video potential displays applications as well as the Oculus Laptops and competitive convertibles landscape and key Augmented/Mixed MicroLED TV prototype (Sony, CES 2012) players. Reality HP The report does not cover Microsoft Tablets non-display applications of Automotive HUD µLED: AC-LEDs, LiFi, Optogenetics, Lithography, lighting… BMW Acer

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 10 SCOPE OF THE REPORT Chips (to scale) Packages (Not to scale)

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 11 WHO SHOULD BE INTERESTED IN THIS REPORT

• LED supply chain: sapphire makers, MOCVD • Display Makers and supply chain suppliers, epi-houses. • Hype versus reality: what is the status of µLED displays? What can we expect in the near • Understand the µLED display opportunity future? • What does it entail for the LED supply? • Are they a threat to my LCD and OLED • What are the technical challenges? investments? • How can my company participate in this emerging • Which display applications and markets can opportunity? µLED displays address? A detailed roadmap. • Who should we partner with? • Find the right partner: detailed mapping of the µLED ecosystem and supply chain • R&D Organizations and Universities • OSAT and foundries • Understand the market potential of your • Are µLED a new opportunity for my technologies for this emerging market company? • Identify the best candidates for collaboration and • Venture capital, financial and strategic technology transfer. investors. • OEMs/ODMs • Hype versus reality. Understand the • What are the potential benefits of µLED displays? technology and the real potential. • Are they a threat or an opportunity for my • How is the supply chain shaping up? products? • Identify the key players and potential investment targets. • When will they be ready • Could µLED hurt my existing investments? • Should I get involved in the supply chain.

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 12 MAJOR MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY BRICKS

Epitaxy & wafer Light Extraction Substrate Pixel Assembly Defect Color Pixel processing Management & shaping Driving

Contactless Die Level 100 - 150 mm Monolithic Direct Single wafer (shaping, Si- Arrays Optical (PL) RGB LED Sapphire Test mirrors) CMOS Epi • Hybridization Contactless • Monolithic Electrical (EL) Pixel bank 200 - 300 mm Quantum

Multi wafer Integration level (mirrors, Backplanes Silicon dots Interposers black matrix) TFT Massively with KGD Parallel Pick Binning Mask • LTPS and Place Nano- Aligners KGD transfer External optics • Oxide [1] phosphor • Electrostatic only Litho • Electromagnetic Pixel Micro Steppers • Magnetic Color conversion Optically • Adhesive… Redundancy pumped Drivers Repair quantum Semi- Pixel Repair wells Testing and continuous binning • Fluidic assembly • Pick and replace • Film cartridges • Add repair Die-level • Flexographic (KGD map) • Laser…

Transfer field level [1]: need Known Good Die (KGD) map and addressable transfer process MicroLED Displays | Sample | 13 MicroLED DISPLAYS TECHNOLOGY EVOLUTION

Cree: Sony: Micro-led arrays with 55” FHD enhanced light extraction University of Strathclyde: HKUST: Full color with microLED TV at LETI: Monochrome active Ostendo: and color phosphor conversion 2012 CES matrix > 2000 PPI full RGB 5000 PPI conversion MicroLED Displays | Sample | 14 ASSEMBLY

• The art of making µLED displays consists in processing a bulk LED substrate into an array of micro-LEDs which are poised for pick up and transfer to a receiving substrate for integration into heterogeneously integrated system: the display (which integrates, LEDs, transistors, optics, etc.). Epiwafers can accommodate 100’s of millions of µLED chips compared to 1000’s with traditional LEDs. • The micro-LEDs can be picked up and transferred individually, in groups, or as the entire array of 100,000’s of µLEDs: Low to Mid Pixel density: Pick and Place High Pixel Density: Monolithic Array Integration

Monolithic Laptop/ TV Wearable Smartphones VR Projection micro display AR/MR integration of Tablets µLED arrays is preferred for Microsoft the realization Samsung Apple of displays Oppo Oculus with high pixel µLED array densities. Si-CMOS Backplane

Hybridization µLED epiwafer Backplane LTPS or Oxide TFT backplane µLED epiwafer

Pixel Per Inch 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 15 TRANSFER FIELDS AND INTERPOSERS

Epiwafer wavelength homogeneity Yield loss = hatched surfaces + and defective die map. transfer fields where the number n If individual functional die testing of KBD and point defects exceeds not available, use PL + traditional specification. Interposer with only good surface inspection. Transfer field with ≥ n point defect transfer fields are eliminated. Transfer directly to backplane or create interposers with transfer fields that are within the wavelength bin and ≤ n KBD/point defects. Some bad die are transferred and need to be repaired.

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 16 DEFECT DENSITY

• The actual specification and the maximum acceptable defect size will depend on: • The die size • The chip structure • The yield and defect management strategy adopted by each manufacturer: driven by cost of ownership (cost of increasing yield vs managing defects) • A plot of a simple Murphy defect density model with a For the smallest triangular distribution shows that to get 90% of 1x1 cm2 die required for transfer fields defect free, the defect density needs be ≤ TV or 2 smartphone 0.1/cm . applications, the • For 2x2 cm2 transfer fields, the requirement increases to largest <0.03 defect/cm2. Larger stamps quickly lead to unacceptable allowable defect wafer yield losses and/or unrealistic demands on defect size will fall below 1 µm density and can only be envisioned if efficient downstream yield management and repair techniques can be deployed. • Regarding defect size, abiding by the 1/5th rule used in Above: plot of a simple Murphy defect density model with a triangular distribution. This model is widely used in the semiconductor manufacturing, a 3x3 µm µLED will likely semiconductor industry for estimating the effect of process defect require ~1 µm features or less, which could be bringing the density. More complex models should be used to account from acceptable defect size to about 0.2 um. Even if more relaxed the fact that defects often ten d to appear in clusters etc. targets are acceptable, 0.5-0.8 µm seems like a reasonable range.

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 17 EXAMPLE OF PROCESS FLOW – APPLE 6 MASKS

Carrier Substrate

p-GaN p-GaN p-GaN MQW MQW MQW n-GaN n-GaN n-GaN Substrate Substrate Substrate Mask#5: opening of the sacrificial layer Stabilization layer deposition: Carrier wafer bonding (about 1 x 1 µm), dry etching (CF4 or NF3) or wet Spin coating of thermosetting material such as (Semi-cured stabilization layer provides sufficient etching (more likely to produce the overhang) benzocyclobutene (BCP) + adhesion layer (e.g.: AP3000 adhesion) from Dow chemical). Cured to 70% so it doesn’t reflow Ohmic contacts

n-GaN n-GaN n-GaN MQW MQW MQW p-GaN p-GaN p-GaN

Carrier Substrate Carrier Substrate Carrier Substrate Mask #6: deposition and patterning of ohmic Epitaxial substrate removal (LLO) n-GaN dry etching or CMP contacts (NiAu or NiAl, typ. 50 Å thick) Annealing at 320 deg. C. for 10 minutes

n-GaN n-GaN n-GaN MQW MQW MQW p-GaN p-GaN p-GaN

Carrier Substrate Carrier Substrate Carrier Substrate ITO deposition (typ. 600 Å thick) Planarization resist Resist is stripped (wet etching or plasma ashing) until the ITO and the passivation layers are removed from the bottom of the large mesa, exposing the sacrificial layers. Residual resist is then fully stripped

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 18 CHIP MANUFACTURING: SUMMARY

Traditional LED µLED Display Manufacturing Manufacturing

Substrate Sapphire dominant xxxxxxxxxxx platform Little opportunity for Silicon

Clean Room Class 10,000 and above xxxxxxxxxx µLED displays might require a paradigm shift Lithography Mask aligners, single shot xxxxxxxxxxxx from traditional LED Paradigm Sidewall quality not critical to LED manufacturing Plasma Etching shift? xxxxxxxxxxxx to silicon efficiency. High tolerance for particles CMOS-type of environment Laser Lift Off Marginal xxxxxxxxxxxx and tools. (sapphire-based platform)

Wafer Bonding Marginal xxxxxxxxxxxx

Testing PL + EL Probe testing xxxxxxxxxxxxx

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 19 KEY ATTRIBUTES OF TRANSFER PROCESSES

KGD Intellectual Throughput Yields Capability Cost compatibility Property • Cycle time • Pick up • Die size • Individual die • Freedom of • Equipment cost • Number of die • Drop off • Die Shape addressability exploitation • Footprint per cycle • Assembly/Inter- • Placement • Interfacing with • Licensing • Consumables connect accuracy inspection/test (transfer stamp equipment – etc.) KGD map

Cost of Ownership

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 20 DIRECT TRANSFER VS. INTERPOSER

Interposers (intermediate carriers) or various forms of pixel “banks” can be used for: - Binning / yield management purpose - Intermediate pitch step up - Pre-assembly of RGB or RGB + driver IC sub-assembly

Red, Green, Blue LED Transistor backplane (TFT, direct hybridization on Silicon…) Epiwafers

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 21 TRANSFER AND ASSEMBLY

• As of Q2-2018, massively parallel pick and place methods are the most mature, lead by X-Celeprint and Apple with passive (PDMS Massively Parallel P&P Leading companies stamps) and active (MEMS) transfer head respectively. Various other companies have demonstrated display prototypes assembled with similar technologies: XXX, XXX, XXX and probably more who haven’t publically shown their work. • Semi-continuous or self assembly processes have also been pitched and/or demonstrated by a variety of companies including Vuereal Continuous/Semi-Continuous and self and eLux. Massively assembly parallel P&P • Semi-continuous process reduce the cycle time by reducing or technologies eliminating the X-Y print-head motion steps between donor and are the most receiver substrate (see discussion in the “Cost Analysis” section of this report). mature. • Laser transfer potentially offers compelling benefits such as high throughput and compatibility with KGD yield management Laser Processes strategies. But development is less advanced than massively parallel P&P. To our knowledge, glō is so far the only company to have realized display prototypes using the concept.

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 22 TRANSFER PROCESSES: MOST MATURE xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx Type • Pick & Place • Pick & Place • Self Assembly • Sequential Sub-type • xxxxx • xxxxxx • xxxxxx • xxxxxx Cycle time • 10-15s (est) • 30s, target 10s • Continuous • Continuous • Up to XX cm stamp demonstrated but • Small to mid size stamps (1-2”?) • Current work on XXX tool delivers Scalability unknown impact on yield, placement • Wafer size (up to 6”) • Probably challenging to scale up ( 50M die/hr throughput. accuracy and cycle time Placement • ? • ±1.5µm 3 • ~ ± 2.5 µm (determined by xxxxx) • ±1.0 µm accuracy • Flat top surface required Constrain on • Flat top surface required • Horizontal LED • Tether and anchors • Vertical LEDs die structure • Horizontal or vertical • Circular geometry preferred. • Horizontal or vertical Yield status • ? • 3N to 4N • 2N8 • > 4N (Q12018) • As small as 10 µm but perform Die Size • As small as 3 µm • As small as 3 µm • 2 to 20 µm better above 20-40 µm

Active stamp [2] • xxxxxxxx • No • NA • Yes. Placement selectivity

KGD • Via additional step to eject bad die from • Die binned/sorted upstream (laser • xxxx • Yes (placement selectivity) management the stamp. lift off) • Low cost stamp Strengths • Possible high accuracy • Potentially very cost-effective • KGD management, throughput • Possibly scalable • High cost stamps • Not addressable • Best for low PPI (0.2 to 1 mm pitch) • Need transparent substrate Limitations • Scalability (large areas?) • Die size can affect cycle time • Large die (sapphire or interposer)

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 23 HYBRIDIZATION: EXAMPLES OF BONDING PROCESS

Hybrid bonding: Cu + oxide Microtube bonding

Hybrid bonding: Cu + Polymer

Hybridized active-matrix GaN 873 x 500 pixel microdisplay at 10 μm pitch using microtube bonding (LETI)

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 24 EMISSION PATTERN AND COLOR MIXING

• If the red, green and blue emitters have different light emission patterns, the color calibration performed at one angle (typically perpendicular to the display plane) will shift when viewed off-angle as the relative intensities of R,G,B viewed in that given direction will changes. • This issue often occurs when the red emitter is formed from a different material (InGaAlP) and has a different structure than the green and blue die (InGaN).

0

-30 30

-60 60

-90 90 Hypothetical beam pattern of Red, Blue and Green emitters (not actual, illustration purpose): the relative intensity of the red green and blue emitters at 0 degree and 30 or 60 degrees varies, [1]: resulting in a shift of color balance at those different angles. (Source: Yole Development)

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 25 FLUX REQUIREMENTS

Max Display Pixel Optical Flux at Driving LED Chip Brightness Density LED surface [1] current Size (Cd/m2) (PPI) (W/cm2) (A/cm2)

TV 4k 5000 80 X µm xxx-xxx xxx-xxx

TV 8K 5000 100 X µm xxx-xxx xxx-xxx Likelihood that quantum Wearable 1500 300 X µm xxx-xxx xxx-xxx dots color conversion be Smartphone 1500 500 X µm xxx-xxx xxx-xxx adopted RGB AR/MR 5,000 3000 X um xxx-xxx xxx-xxx (State of the art)

RGB AR/MR 500,000 5000 X µm xxx-xxx xxx-xxx (Goal)

[1]: for all applications, it is assumed that the downconverter is deposited directly at the surface of the pixel (discussion next page). In addition, an overall optical efficiency of 60% for the red and green and 80% for blue (unconverted) was assumed. [2]: optimal efficiency with GaN LED is achieved with current density in the 1-10 A/cm2 range. For applications where the required driving current is significantly below that range, the LED will likely be driven in pulsed mode, ie at higher current density with a low duty cycle

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 26 INTRODUCTION

• The different functions required for active display driving are shared between discrete ICs positioned Row Driver at the edges or behind the panel and Thin Film Transistor (TFT) circuitry deposited directly onto Column the display substrate (=backplane). Driver TFT Timing Pixels Power • Emissive displays such as OLED or microLED are Controller current-driven. The simplest mode of operation for the TFT circuit requires 2 transistors and 1 Gamma circuit (2T1C). Driving emissive Test circuits Other circuits displays (OLED, • However, very small variations in current result in etc. µLED) requires visible brightness differences visible by the human complex eye. The 2T1C simple design doesn’t compensate for Simple block diagram for display driving compensation pixel to pixel variations in the threshold voltage, schemes carrier mobility, or series resistance that result from TFT processing or from variability in the emitters (LED or OLED) • Compensation schemes relying on a larger number of transistors per pixel (up to 7 in some designs) are Simple, non compensated pixel circuit Example of a 4 transistor therefore used. The complexity of the TFT however with 2 transistors [1] compensated circuit [1] can be reduced in some designs by offloading some of the compensation function onto external ICs [1]. [1]: Source: “AM backplane for AMOLED”; Min-Koo Han, Proc. of ASID ’06,

[1]: LG OLED TV for example are driven by 2T1C circuit with compensation performed by external ICs MicroLED Displays | Sample | 27 ILLUSTRATION: 75” 4K TV

• MicroLED makers usually strive to: • 75 Inch diagonal Panel characteristics • Use the smallest die possible to minimize cost. • 4K resolution (3840x2160) • Operate close to peak efficiency in the typical brightness Die size 5 x 5 um range of the display. • For a 75” 4K TV, a 1000 Nits brightness can be Peak Brightness 3000 nits achieved with XX µm die operated near peak Average Brightness 1000 nits efficiency at XX A/cm2 (blue and green chips). Lowest brightness 3 nits • At this average brightness level, the current per chip is LED emission pattern Lambertian (120 ° APEX angle) XX µA. Optical efficiency (Photon losses in 80% • For the lowest and highest brightness levels, the pixel cavity, external optic etc..) current range between XX nA and XX nA

Display Current Density Current EQE Brightness 20% Low (3 Nits) XXX A/cm2 XX µA 14% Average (1000 XXX A/cm2 XX µA 22% 10% Nits) Peak (3000 XXX A/cm2 XX µA 19% Nits)

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 28 TFT VERSUS DISCRETE MICRO IC.

• Another debate is whether TFT used for OLED panel driving (LTPS for smartphones and wearable, Oxide for TVs) are suitable for microLED. • Due to the non linear characteristics of microLED, the different ranges of operating currents and the added complexity of using 2 types of semiconductors in RGB solutions (InGaN and InGaAlP), driving circuits will likely be more complex than OLED and integration with traditional TFT be more challenging. • Apple/Luxvue and X-Celeprint have both suggested using discrete Si-Based microdrivers to drive the pixels. X- Celeprint has demonstrated multiple display prototypes using this concept.

Sub pixel with 2x µLED redundancy

IC driver

A µLED display where discrete ICs positioned on the front face drives groups of 12 subpixels featuring a 2x redundancy. (Source: LuxVue patent US 9,318,475) Patent XXX from XXX [1]

[1]: we believe that XXX is a company created by Apple and under which name its has been filing its microLED patents after 2015 MicroLED Displays | Sample | 29 COST ANALYSIS: INTRODUCTION

• At the current stage of maturation of the By defining cost targets and performing a basic cost analysis within realistic process parameters, it is possibly to narrow the size of the process windows industry, there are still many plausible technology compatible with economical targets for each application. and process choices. This precludes comprehensive cost modeling. Current microLED process window • However, there are some fundamentals that anchor all those processes: alignment dominates assembly cycle times, die size can’t get infinitely Many unknowns small, and epitaxy has already been through a in term of more than 20 years cost reduction curve. technological Realistic process window narrowed

• Basic cost analysis can therefore be performed : choices prevent down with high level cost analyses to narrow the process space to a more detailed cost Die modeling but a economically realistic window. high level • The objective of this section is to provide such analysis can still yield… redundancy, cost, ize, S provide valuable analyses for the major building blocks and cost insights contributors in to order validate the fundamental Product and economics of microLED displays and identify volume credible cost-down paths and targets. manufacturing -compatible • The effort is focused on the 2 high volume process applications where have the most window potential to both disrupt the existing display Assembly: chain and generate large, new business Cycle time, yield, stamp size, sequential/continuous, self assembly, redundancy… opportunities:TV and Smartphones. MicroLED Displays | Sample | 30 75” TV PANEL ASSEMBLY STRATEGIES We first consider the following 3 assembly scenario with increasing transfer stamp sizes and no interposers:

12.73 x 12.73 mm2 transfer stamps

• 86 transfer fields per wafer • 86% of the wafer surface used 9694 transfer cycle per color

25.45 x 25.45 mm2 transfer stamps

75” TV Panel

• 18 transfer field per wafer • 72% of the wafer surface used 2442 transfer cycle per color

101.8 x 101.8 mm2 transfer stamps

Drawings approximately to scale • 1 transfer field per wafer • 64% of the wafer surface used 170 transfer cycle per color

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 31 SEQUENTIAL TRANSFER – 4N YIELD

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 32 CAPEX

Investment to set up a microLED fab should be at least on par and most likely lower than that of an OLED or even Oxide TFT LCD Fab

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 33 COST TARGET

• The microLED die + assembly budget to strictly match OLED by 2022 is around ~$XX. • If microLED can deliver unique and desirable features that no other panel technologies can offer (e.g.: sensing functionalities, superior and local brightness adjustment, reduced power draw etc.), this cost budget could increase up to $XX, after budgeting for additional cost related to those new functionalities (microsensors etc)

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 34 MICROLED APPLICATION ROADMAP

Now 2020 2021 2022 2024+ Longer term (2018) 2023+

Smartwatch and wearables High end TVs and monitors (4K, HDR) • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxx. • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxx. Smartphone Small pitch (<2mm) • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. large video displays. xxxxxxxxxxxxx. • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. • Brings significant • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx performance improvement AR/MR HMDs xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. (contrast) and potential • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cost reduction (eliminates Tablets and laptop xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx LED package) • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx • Large die OK (30 µm) but xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx low transfer efficiency. • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx • Available from Sony since xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxx. 2017: • Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Automotive HUD xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx • Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Virtual Reality (VR) xxxxxxxxxxxxx. Other Automotive Displays • High cost. • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx • xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx • Limited benefits xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx vs OLED.

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 35 MICROLED TV PANEL VOLUME FORECAST

Distinguishing 8K is important since they feature 4x more microLED die than 4K panels

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 36 BREAKDOWN BY COMPANY TYPE

MicroLED Displays | Sample | 37