https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/api-orchestration-workflow-engine-state-machine-execution-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Software & Cloud Systems

API Orchestration, Workflow Engine and State Machine Execution Patents

Analysis of 215 patent families on orchestration and workflow state machine execution, covering filer concentration, technology split and filing activity.

466
Published Records
215
Simple Patent Families
5%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
48%
In Force at Cut-off

466 published records collapse into 215 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. AMAZON TECH INC is named on 11 of the 215 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 224 of 466 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 215 simple patent families and 466 published records sit behind this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • AMAZON TECH INC holds the largest single share named on 11 of the 215 families (5.1%), ahead of the fifth-place filer at 4 families.
  • 81 of the 92 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each indicating a long tail beneath the handful of entities with larger counts.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This landscape is built from the search string TAC:((orchestration OR workflow) AND ("state machine" OR "finite state") AND (execution OR engine)), which returns 215 simple patent families and 466 published records. No date limit was applied, so the result set spans whatever years the matching text appears in, not a fixed window chosen for this page.

Records are drawn from 19 receiving offices, with the United States, Europe (EPO), India, WIPO (PCT), China and Australia carrying the largest counts among them. The technology composition below uses the family count as its denominator, and because a single family can carry more than one IPC subclass, the shares shown sum to more than 100%.

Scope at a glance
  1. AMAZON TECH INC11
  2. SAP SE6
  3. MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC6
  4. SALESFORCE INC4
  5. BMC HELIX INC4
  6. ADVANCED NEW TECHNOLOGIES CO LTD4
  7. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS3
  8. VELLORE INSITUTE OF TECH3
  9. SIEMENS AG3
  10. UMNAI LTD3

Counted over all 466 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 439 records from 2007 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. 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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC, MICROSOFT CORP). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (8 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 30 of the 92 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 92 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 API Orchestration Workflow Engine State Machine Execution Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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 activity and technology split

The figures below are drawn directly from the dataset: a filing trend counted in published records, and an IPC composition counted in simple patent families.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (439 of 466 published records)

Published records rose from 19 in 2007 to a peak so far of 59 in 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so the recent years understate eventual totals; this is a publication-lag effect in the chart, not a change in filing activity.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (439 of 466 published records)015304560192007200920112013201520172019202120232025592022 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. This chart covers 2007-2026 (439 records); the 466 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

Technology composition (IPC subclass)

G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 67.9% of the 215 families, the highest share of any subclass, followed by G06Q (Business, commerce & admin data processing) at 34.9%, H04L (Digital information transmission) at 20.9% and G06N (Computing based on AI models) at 19.1%. Because families can carry multiple IPC subclasses, these shares add up to more than 100%.

Technology composition (IPC subclass)G06F · Electric digital data processi…14667.9%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…7534.9%H04L · Digital information transmissi…4520.9%G06N · Computing based on AI models4119.1%G16H · Healthcare informatics115.1%G06V · Image/video recognition62.8%G10L · Speech & audio analysis/synthe…52.3%A61B · Diagnosis & surgery41.9%Other4119.1%

Shares are the percentage of the 215 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 API Orchestration Workflow Engine State Machine Execution Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on API Orchestration Workflow Engine State Machine Execution Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about api orchestration workflow engine state machine execution patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Representative Record

A record from the result set

First record returned
US20120151272A12012-06-14

Adding scalability and fault tolerance to generic finite state machine frameworks for use in automated incident management of cloud computing infrastructures

GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.

A scalable and fault tolerant finite state machine engine, for example, for use in an automated incident management system, logs or records data in persistent storage at different points or levels during various internal processing of an event associated with an information technology element, and action taken associated with the event, by executing a finite state machine instance that encodes policies for handling incidents on such types of information technology elements. In the event that the finite state machine engine is shutdown during processing, the finite state machine engine is able to pick up from where it left off when it was shutdown, for each abnormally terminated finite state machine instance.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate what one record in this search looks like, not to represent the field.

US20120151272A1, patent drawing 1US20120151272A1, patent drawing 2
View 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 API Orchestration Workflow Engine State Machine Execution Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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 →
Insights

Reading the filer and technology data

These cards report individual figures from the dataset. Each stands alone; none of them should be added to another to produce a combined share.

Largest filer
11 families
AMAZON TECH INC

Single largest family count among listed filers

AMAZON TECH INC is named on 11 of the 215 simple patent families in scope (5.1%). The fifth-place filer holds 4 families and the tenth-place filer holds 3. Two listed rows begin with the name Microsoft (MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC and MICROSOFT CORP); they are listed separately and are not summed here.

Family counts do not indicate claim scope, validity or commercial value.
Filer spread
81 of 92
filers hold 2 or fewer families

Most listed filers hold a small number of families

Of the 92 listed filers, 81 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed filer rows together sum to 67% of the 215 families in scope, but because one family can name several filers, this figure cannot be read as a share of unique inventions.

The filer table shows only the top 30 of the 92 listed entities, and the list excludes individual-named filers that are still counted in the totals.
Technology split
67.9%
of families carry G06F

G06F carries the largest share of the IPC composition

G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 146 of the 215 families (67.9%), the highest share of any subclass in this dataset. G06Q (Business, commerce & admin data processing) follows at 34.9%, H04L (Digital information transmission) at 20.9% and G06N (Computing based on AI models) at 19.1%. These shares overlap because families can carry multiple subclasses.

36 subclasses appear in total across the 215 families; only the largest few are discussed here.
Legal status
48%
of records in force at retrieval

Just under half of records were granted and in force

224 of the 466 published records (48%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this breakdown is not available on this page.

In-force status is a snapshot at the retrieval date and changes continuously; it is not a measure of quality.
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 api orchestration workflow engine state machine execution 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 API Orchestration Workflow Engine State Machine Execution Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Where to take this analysis

The figures above describe what this search returned. Narrowing or re-running the query inside Patsnap Eureka can test whether these patterns hold under a tighter definition.

Check a specific filer's family

Family counts here are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and its subsidiaries can appear as separate rows. Pull individual families to confirm what any one entity actually holds.

Explore filers in Eureka

Read the granted claims directly

An abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope. Before drawing any freedom-to-operate conclusion, pull the granted claim set for the specific record in question.

Open claim search in Eureka

Re-run with a tighter search string

This search string sets no date limit and can catch unrelated matches in smaller IPC branches. Refining the Boolean query can separate genuine signal from noise.

Rebuild the search 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 API Orchestration Workflow Engine State Machine Execution Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for API Orchestration Workflow Engine State Machine Execution Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research API Orchestration Workflow Engine State Machine Execution Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole api orchestration workflow engine state machine execution 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:((orchestration OR workflow) AND ("state machine" OR "finite state") AND (execution OR engine))

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 67.9% 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 466 records and 215 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 (8 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 30 of the 92 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 92 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 2026-10-21.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (224 of 466). 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.