When Can Nanoimprint Compete? Process-Specific Total Cost, Yield Risk, and the Adoption of Canon Nanoimprint Lithography Relative to ASML Deep-Ultraviolet and Extreme-Ultraviolet Lithography

Nanoimprint lithography (NIL) promises sub-15-nm patterning at a fraction of the capital cost and energy draw of extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, yet the parameters that would tell a cost-rational manufacturer whether to adopt Canon's FPA-1200NZ2C over ASML deep-ultraviolet (DUV) immersion or EUV scanners—defect density, template lifetime, tool price, and qualified yield—go undisclosed. This study bounds those parameters rather than guessing them. It integrates a process-specific total-cost-of-ownership model covering four platforms and five device layers, a Monte Carlo yield-risk simulation (N = 10,000 draws per cell, seed 20261022), and adoption-stage panel econometrics on a firm-platform-year panel (N = 243, G = 9). At central inputs, a single imprint pass costs $54.73, against $37.24 for DUV immersion, $104.22 for Low-NA EUV, and $172.50 for High-NA EUV. Once yield is included, nanoimprint is the low-cost platform in three-dimensional NAND ($312.10 per good wafer vs. $585.50 for DUV immersion and $454.63 for Low-NA EUV, winning in 76.99% of draws), back-end damascene, and photonics; it is marginal in advanced DRAM and uncompetitive in leading-edge logic. Defect density and template life, not tool price, govern the result. Adoption stage tracks accumulated knowledge (logged knowledge-stock β = 1.1306), and no Canon NIL observation reaches qualified high-volume manufacturing (Stages 7–9: 0%). A 97-check audit records 87 PASS, 10 WARN, and 0 FAIL. Cost and simulation findings are conditional scenario mechanics; econometric findings are descriptive associations, not causal effects. Nanoimprint competes where layers are defect-tolerant, not across the board.