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 →A 6-family dataset on API gateway request validation against OpenAPI specs, with filers, IPC split and filing trend through 2026.
8 published records collapse into 6 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 4 of 8 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This dataset gathers published records matching a search string built around API gateway or application programming interface gateway, combined with OpenAPI, Swagger or API specification, and validation or enforcement. No date limit was applied, so this is every matching record the search returned regardless of when it was filed. The set resolves to 6 simple patent families from 8 published records, with legal status recorded for exactly half: 4 of the 8 records were granted and still in force at retrieval.
This is a small pool: 6 simple patent families is not enough to support conclusions about concentration, growth or white space. Treat this page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the field.
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 (1 here); 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 5 of the 5 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 5 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.
The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing trend counted in published records by earliest filing year, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Recorded filings run from a 2019 record up to a 2026 record, with a peak so far of 3 records in 2025. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so the right-hand side of the chart understates what will eventually appear; this is a publication-lag effect, not a change in filing activity.
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.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 5 of the 5 simple patent families, 83.3% of the set. G06N (computing based on AI models) and G16H (healthcare informatics) each appear on 1 family, 16.7% apiece. Because a family can carry more than one IPC subclass, these shares add up to more than 100%.
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%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about api gateway request validation against openapi specification patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a federated API gateway system. An API request from a client device is received, and a client gateway module tied to a digital service provider system is selected based on that request from within the federated gateway. The selected module applies one or more transformations to form a transformed API request, and applies transformations again to a digital service provider API response to generate the final API response returned to the client.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest record in the set. Reading what a patent blocks requires the granted claims, which are not reproduced here; an abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope.


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.
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 →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 →Three figures from this dataset, reported as counted, without rolling them up into a combined share.
Five filers, EBAY INC, KONG INC, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA, ARECABAY INC and TECH MAHINDRA INDIA, are each named on 1 of the 6 simple patent families in scope. The filer list returns organisations only; filings held by named individuals are excluded from the list but remain inside the family and record totals.
EBAY INC is named on 1 of the 6 simple patent families, 16.7% of the set. Because one family can name more than one filer, this figure belongs to this row alone and cannot be added to any other row's share.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) is recorded against 5 of the 5 simple patent families. G06N and G16H each appear on 1 family. Subclasses can overlap on a single family, so these percentages do not sum to 100%.
Of 8 published records, 6 were filed at the United States office and 2 at the India office. This describes where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to api gateway request validation against openapi specification patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports counts from one search string. Deeper questions about claim scope, enforceability or adjacent filings need a tool built for that kind of digging.
A family count or an abstract cannot tell you what a granted claim actually requires. Pull the claim set for any record that matters before drawing a conclusion about scope.
Explore in EurekaA 6-family pool is thin enough that different phrasing could surface records this search missed entirely. Treat the current scope as a first pass.
Run a new search in EurekaThis search returned 8 published records, which resolve to 6 simple patent families once duplicate country filings of the same invention are merged. The search string applied no date limit, so this covers every matching record the database holds regardless of when it was filed. Because the pool is this small, it should be read as a starting point rather than a complete picture of filing activity in this area.
Five organisations appear in the filer list returned by this search: EBAY INC, KONG INC, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA, ARECABAY INC and TECH MAHINDRA INDIA, each named on 1 of the 6 simple patent families. There is no single filer ahead of the others in this set, all five tie at the same count. The filer list excludes filings held by named individuals, so the family total includes entries not reflected in this list.
Published records in this set run from a record filed in 2019 to one filed in 2026, with the highest single-year count so far being 3 records in 2025. Records from 2022 onward are still incomplete because publication lags filing by up to 30 months in some routes, so recent years will show higher counts as more records publish. The chart counts published records, not de-duplicated inventions, so it should not be read as a measure of how many distinct technologies were filed.
Of the IPC subclasses returned, G06F (Electric digital data processing) is recorded against 5 of the 5 simple patent families in scope, the highest share in this set. G06N (computing based on AI models) and G16H (healthcare informatics) each appear on 1 family. These shares overlap rather than add to 100%, since a single family can carry more than one classification.
The search returned published records from two receiving offices: the United States, with 6 of the 8 records, and India, with 2. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any applicant or inventor is based, the dataset provides no nationality or location information about the filers themselves. With only two offices represented, this should not be read as a full picture of global filing activity.
At retrieval, 4 of the 8 published records were granted and still in force; the remainder may be pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those categories are not broken out separately. Legal status changes continuously and reflects where each document sits in its own prosecution or renewal cycle, not a success or quality rate for the technology. With only 8 records in the set, this figure describes this specific dataset at this specific retrieval date rather than a general pattern.
Go past this page: query the whole api gateway request validation against openapi specification patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("API gateway" OR "application programming interface gateway") AND ("OpenAPI" OR "Swagger" OR "API specification") AND (validation OR enforcement))
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 (G06F) carries 83.3% 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 8 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 (1 of them here). 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 5 of the 5 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 5 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 (4 of 8). 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.
This page