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 2-family dataset on arithmetic coding hardware accelerators for data compression, with filers, IPC split and a sample filing to start research from.
3 published records collapse into 2 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 2 of 3 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This search looked for records whose title, abstract or claims combine arithmetic coding or an arithmetic encoder with a hardware accelerator and data compression. It returned 3 published records, which de-duplicate to 2 simple patent families once filings for the same invention across countries are collapsed. No date limit was set on the query, so this is every record the string matched, regardless of filing year.
With only 2 families in scope, this page is a starting point for a search, not a map of the field. Counts this small can move entirely because of how the search string is worded, so treat any pattern here as a cue for further reading rather than a conclusion about who is active in arithmetic coding hardware acceleration.
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 2 of the 2 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 2 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
The figures below come directly from the search result: 3 published records collapsing to 2 simple patent families, split across two filers and two IPC subclasses.
The trend counts published records by earliest filing year, from a 2015 peak of 2 records down to 0 in 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so that stretch of the chart understates its eventual count; this is a publication-lag effect, not a decline in 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.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) and H03M (Coding & code conversion) each appear on 1 of the 2 simple patent families, 50.0% apiece. Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add to more than 100% and are not a split of the whole.
Shares are the percentage of the 2 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 arithmetic coding hardware accelerator for data compression patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a method of lossless data compression that receives a set of parallel data strings, determines compression hash values for each string, finds bit matches among string portions using those hash values, selects among literals and bit matches for each string, and applies Huffman encoding to the selected literals or bit matches.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate what the search matched, not to represent the dataset as a whole.


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 →Four figures from the search result, reported as counted, none of them support a ranking or a market-size conclusion on a pool this small.
The search returned 3 published records, which collapse to 2 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. No date limit was applied, so this is the full matching set as retrieved on 2026-10-27.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC and Shenzhen MicroBT Electronics Tech Co Ltd are each named on 1 of the 2 simple patent families (50.0% for the named row). The listed filers are organisations; individual-named filings are excluded from this list where they can be identified but remain in the totals.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) and H03M (Coding & code conversion) are each present on 1 of the 2 families in scope. These shares sum to more than 100% because a single family can carry both classifications.
2 of the 2 published records were granted and still in force when the data was pulled. The remaining record sits in one of several other statuses not broken out here, and legal status changes continuously, so this is a snapshot rather than an outcome.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to arithmetic coding hardware accelerator for data compression patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page surfaces a small, specific result set. The next steps depend on whether the goal is broadening the search or reading individual claims closely.
An abstract and a family count cannot establish what a patent's claims actually require. Pull the granted claim set for any record that matters before drawing conclusions about scope.
Open the record in EurekaA 2-family result is highly sensitive to the exact wording used. Trying adjacent terms for the same technique may surface related filings this string did not catch.
Run a new search in EurekaNames in this list are not rolled up to corporate group, and rows are not additive. Any row of interest should be checked on its own rather than combined with others.
Explore filers in EurekaThis specific search string returned 3 published records, which de-duplicate to 2 simple patent families once the same invention filed across different countries is counted once. No date limit was applied, so this is the complete set matched by this exact wording rather than a count bounded to particular years. A different search string covering related terms could return a different number, so this figure should be read as specific to this query rather than as a count of all such technology.
The search returned two listed filing organisations: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC and Shenzhen MicroBT Electronics Tech Co Ltd, each named on 1 of the 2 simple patent families in scope. There is no single largest filer in this result, the two rows are tied. Individual-named filers were removed from this list where they can be identified but remain inside the total counts, and the list itself is not the complete universe of possible filers, only what this search surfaced.
Its abstract describes a method for lossless data compression that hashes parallel data strings, finds bit matches among them using those hashes, selects among literals and bit matches, and applies Huffman encoding to the result. This describes what the abstract discusses, not what the granted claims legally require, claim scope has to be read from the issued claim set and prosecution history, not inferred from an abstract or a family count. It was selected here only because it is the first record under the database's default ordering, not because it is the most cited or broadest filing in the set.
The chart on this page counts published records by earliest filing year, from a peak of 2 records in 2015 down to 0 by 2026, but this counts documents, not inventions, and the same invention filed in several countries adds more than one mark. Records from 2022 onward are still publishing, so recent years understate their eventual totals purely from publication lag rather than any drop in filing. With a pool this size, year-to-year movement is not a basis for reading acceleration or decline.
The published records in this dataset were all filed at a single receiving office: the United States, accounting for all 3 published records returned. This tells you where applications entered the patent system, not where any filer is based, no nationality or country-of-origin data for any filer is included in this dataset. Readers wanting broader jurisdictional coverage should treat this single-office result as a property of this specific search rather than of the underlying technology.
Go past this page: query the whole arithmetic coding hardware accelerator for data compression 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:(("arithmetic coding" OR "arithmetic encoder") AND ("hardware accelerator" OR accelerator) AND ("data compression" OR compression))
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 3 records and 2 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 2 of the 2 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 2 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 2026-10-27.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (2 of 3). 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