https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/angle-encoder-self-calibration-error-separation-method-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Sensors & Metrology

Angle Encoder Self-Calibration Error Separation: Patent Filings

Six patent families cover angle encoder self-calibration error separation, split across universities and measurement firms with no single top filer.

12
Published Records
6
Simple Patent Families
42%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction

12 published records collapse into 6 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 5 of 12 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • Six filers share the top count, each named on 1 of the 6 simple patent families in scope, so no single organisation holds the most.
  • The dataset is thin, 12 published records reduce to 6 simple patent families, with records filed across China, Europe, the US, Austria and WIPO.
  • G01D covers half the pool, appearing on 3 of the 6 simple patent families, the highest share of any IPC subclass found here.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This page reports results for the search string TAC:(("angle encoder" OR "rotary encoder") AND "self-calibration" AND ("error separation" OR error)), retrieved 2026-10-20. It returns 12 published records, which de-duplicate to 6 simple patent families once filings of the same invention across countries are merged. The search carries no date limit, so this set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a defined window.

With only 6 families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat the figures here as a starting point for a closer search rather than a map of the field: a handful of documents can shift any share shown on this page, and absence of a term in these results is as likely to reflect the search string as it is to reflect what has actually been filed.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. CHONGQING UNIV OF POSTS & TELECOMM1
  2. SOUTHEAST UNIV1
  3. GUANGZHOU SUNTRANS MEASUREMENT & CONTROL SYST1
  4. SZ DJI TECH CO LTD1
  5. TOPCON CORPORATION1
  6. THE UNIV OF BRITISH COLUMBIA1

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 6 of the 6 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 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 Angle Encoder Self Calibration Error Separation Method Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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

The chart below counts published records by earliest filing year; the technology breakdown counts simple patent families against IPC subclass.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)

Records run from 2008 through the most recent filings, with a peak of 3 records reached in both 2018 and 2019. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the recent stretch of the line understates its eventual count rather than showing a drop-off. No growth rate is reported for this dataset.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)01223220082010201220142016320183202020222024020262022 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.

Technology composition (IPC subclass, share of 6 simple patent families)

G01D (measuring, general & recording) appears on 3 of the 6 families, the highest share of any subclass here. G01C, G01F, G05D and G06K each appear on 1 of the 6 families. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to more than 100%.

Technology composition (IPC subclass, share of 6 simple patent families)G01D · Measuring (general) & recording350.0%G01C · Distance, navigation & gyrosco…116.7%G01F · Flow, level & volume measuring116.7%G05D · Control of non-electric variab…116.7%G06K · Data recognition & presentation116.7%

Shares are the percentage of the 6 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 Angle Encoder Self Calibration Error Separation Method Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Angle Encoder Self Calibration Error Separation Method Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about angle encoder self calibration error separation method patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example filing

A record from the result set

From the result set
EP3628979A12020-04-01

EP3628979A1, "DREHCODIERER"

TOPCON CORPORATION

The abstract describes a rotary encoder with a rotary disk carrying an angle code, a light source with multiple light-emitting elements positioned at different rotation angles, a detector reading the angle code, and a processing unit acquiring a reading value from it. The stated aim is self-calibration that accounts for errors caused by deflection of the rotary disk.Filed by Topcon Corporation, published 2020-04-01. This is simply the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited or most representative filing in the set.

EP3628979A1, patent drawing 1EP3628979A1, patent drawing 2
View full 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 Angle Encoder Self Calibration Error Separation Method Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 →
Patterns in the data

What the figures show

Three figures from this dataset, reported as counted, with the limits that apply to each.

Filer concentration
6 filers tied at 1 family each
simple patent families

No single filer holds the most

Six listed filers, Chongqing Univ of Posts & Telecomm, Southeast Univ, Guangzhou Suntrans Measurement & Control Syst, SZ DJI Tech Co Ltd, Topcon Corporation and one more, are each named on 1 of the 6 simple patent families in scope, so the top count is shared rather than held by one organisation. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and are not summed here.

6 of 6 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
Technology split
50.0%
of 6 families carry G01D

G01D appears on half the families

G01D (measuring, general & recording) is named on 3 of the 6 simple patent families, the highest share of any IPC subclass in this dataset. G01C, G01F, G05D and G06K each appear on 1 of the 6 families. A family can carry more than one class, so these shares do not sum to 100%.

Counted against the 6-family total, not the 12-record total.
Legal status
5 of 12
records granted and in force

42% of records are in force at retrieval

5 of the 12 published records (42%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-20 retrieval date. The remainder cover pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined status, which is not broken out further in this dataset. In-force status is a point-in-time legal state, not a measure of the record's scope or value.

Status recorded at the data retrieval date only.
Filing geography
5 offices
receiving offices, by published record

Records were filed across five offices

The 12 published records were filed across China (4), the EPO (4), the United States (2), Austria (1) and WIPO/PCT (1). This counts where each record was filed, not where any filer is based, and the figures sum to the record total rather than the family total since one invention can appear at more than one office.

All 5 receiving offices returned by the search are listed.
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 angle encoder self calibration error separation method 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 Angle Encoder Self Calibration Error Separation Method Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this next

This page is a starting point built from one search string. The following moves help confirm or extend what it shows.

Pull the granted claims

A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Read the granted claim set directly for any record before drawing conclusions about what it covers.

Open in Eureka →

Broaden or vary the search string

With only 6 families returned, adjacent terms or synonyms for "error separation" may surface filings this exact string missed.

Refine the search →

Check filer rows individually

Filer names here are not rolled up to corporate group. Confirm any relationship between similarly named rows before treating them as one organisation.

Explore filers 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 Angle Encoder Self Calibration Error Separation Method Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Angle Encoder Self Calibration Error Separation Method Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Angle Encoder Self Calibration Error Separation Method Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole angle encoder self calibration error separation method 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:(("angle encoder" OR "rotary encoder") AND "self-calibration" AND ("error separation" OR error))

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.

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 12 records and 6 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 6 of the 6 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 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 2026-10-20.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (5 of 12). 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.