E-Beam Direct-Write Lithography: Does It Have the Support It Deserves?

At the MCA BrightSpots Lithography Forum’s live panel this week at SPIE’s Photomask Technology conference, an interesting discussion got underway about the funding — or lack thereof — for direct-write e-beam lithography technology development.

As moderator for the event, one of my first orders of business in the 45-minute discussion was to assess whether EUV lithography and e-beam lithography technologies were bitter rivals or in fact complementary techniques working together to extend semiconductor manufacturing capabilities in step with Moore’s Law. In a description of the all-day Wednesday special session at Photomask on e-beam direct write (EBDW), the organizers played up the downsides of EUV technology, seemingly pitting e-beam against the current frontrunner.

However, panelists Franklin Kalk (Toppan Photomasks) and Aki Fujimura (D2S) both made points regarding their likely harmonic co-existence. E-beam will likely be needed for different layers and applications than EUV, focused on low-volume, often prototype applications as opposed to EUV’s high-volume tact. In fact, e-beam’s ability to enable more designs and more tapeouts by avoiding costly mask development will ultimately lead to more business in any advanced lithography technique, including EUV.

But the discussion began to get a bit more heated when audience member Hans Pfeiffer (HCP Consulting Services) stood up and made the point that if e-beam could get the kind of funding that’s been thrown to EUV, it could easily overcome its challenges. He wanted to know why, if there were so many companies seemingly committed to e-beam’s development (as evidenced by the growing membership of the eBeam Initiative), was there not more money to back it up. But Sematech’s Warren Montgomery argued that e-beam has been around for long enough that people know whether or not it’s a worthwhile technology to pursue; if it were really so promising, it would already have the funding it needs.

Unfortunately, we ran out of time to let the debate fully run its course. But luckily, MCA plans to continue the discussion as the BrightSpots Lithography Forum goes online over the next seven days. Hopefully we can get back into this critical discussion, with the panelists and other industry players joining in to voice their concerns and solutions. Do you have a perspective that you'd like to add?

— Aaron Hand