https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/automatic-call-distributor-agent-queuing-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Telecommunications

Automatic Call Distributor Agent Queuing Algorithm Patents

A look at 225 patent families on automatic call distributor queuing, where filings concentrate and the technology split across them.

687
Published Records
225
Simple Patent Families
8%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
10%
In Force at Cut-off

687 published records collapse into 225 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. WILMINGTON TRUST NAT ASSOC AS ADMINISTATIVE AGENT is named on 17 of the 225 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 In force = 68 of 687 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 225 simple patent families and 687 published records sit in scope for this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • The largest single filer, Wilmington Trust Nat Assoc As Administative Agent, is named on 17 of the 225 families, a 7.6% share, while 55 of the 80 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • H04M (telephonic communication) appears on 199 of the 225 families, the highest share of any IPC subclass in this dataset, at 88.4%.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This page maps 225 simple patent families (687 published records) returned by a search combining automatic call distributor / ACD terminology with queuing or agent-assignment language, restricted to telephone, telephony or call-center contexts. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to carry. Families count de-duplicated inventions; records count each publication separately, including multiple national filings of the same invention.

Of the 687 records, 68 (10%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable from the data returned, and that breakdown is not separated out further here.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. WILMINGTON TRUST NAT ASSOC AS ADMINISTATIVE AGENT17
  2. CISCO TECHNOLOGY INC14
  3. AVAYA INC11
  4. AT&T CORP10
  5. FIRSTPOINT CONTACT TECHNOLOGIES LLC9
  6. GENESYS CLOUD SERVICES INC9
  7. LUCENT TECH INC8
  8. ROCKWELL ELECTRONICS COMMERCE TECH LLC6
  9. ASPECT COMMUNICATIONS CORP6
  10. VERIZON PATENT & LICENSING INC6

Counted over all 687 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 109 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 (ROCKWELL ELECTRONICS COMMERCE TECH LLC, ROCKWELL SEMICON SYST INC). 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 (20 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 80 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 80 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 Automatic Call Distributor Agent Queuing Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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 two charts below use different units, published records for the trend, simple patent families for the technology split, and are read separately rather than combined.

Published records by earliest filing year (109 of 687 published records)

The trend runs from 578 records filed before the charted window through to a highest year of 20 records in 2007, which is the highest year shown rather than a the highest year shown since earlier filings sit outside the chart. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so that stretch understates its eventual count and should not be read as a decline.

Published records by earliest filing year (109 of 687 published records)0510152020200720092011201320152017201920212023202502022 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 (109 records); the 687 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2007 is the highest year shown, but it is also the first year in the window: earlier filings sit outside this chart, so this is not necessarily the historical peak.

IPC subclass composition

H04M (telephonic communication) is named on 199 of the 225 families (88.4%), H04Q (switching & selecting) on 69 (30.7%), and H04L (digital information transmission) on 34 (15.1%). Families can carry more than one class, so these shares add to more than 100% and are not a partition of the set.

IPC subclass compositionH04M · Telephonic communication19988.4%H04Q · Switching & selecting6930.7%H04L · Digital information transmissi…3415.1%G06F · Electric digital data processi…2511.1%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…167.1%H04N · Pictorial communication (video…41.8%H04W · Wireless communication networks31.3%G06K · Data recognition & presentation20.9%Other83.6%

Shares are the percentage of the 225 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 Automatic Call Distributor Agent Queuing Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Automatic Call Distributor Agent Queuing Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about automatic call distributor agent queuing algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

A record from the result set

From the result set
US6650748B12003-11-18

Multiple call handling in a call center

AVAYA INC

The abstract describes a method for indefinitely queuing telephone calls in a call center independent of the telephone instrument deployed, using an Automatic Call Distributor connected to agent telephones and a Computer-Telephony Integration link to a multi-call handling server. Call center technicians create route points in the ACD's configuration program, and a client application on the server monitors calls across the system.US6650748B1, assigned to Avaya Inc, published 2003-11-18. Returned here under the database's default result order, not the most cited, newest or broadest record in scope.

US6650748B1, patent drawing 1US6650748B1, 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 Automatic Call Distributor Agent Queuing Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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

Three figures from this dataset are worth sitting with before drawing conclusions from the rankings elsewhere on the page.

Concentration
7.6%
share of 225 families

Largest single filer by family count

Wilmington Trust Nat Assoc As Administative Agent is named on 17 of the 225 simple patent families in scope, a 7.6% share. This is a single-row count; filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, and the figure says nothing about claim scope or enforceability.

Single-row share, not a group total.
Spread
55 of 80
listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

A long tail of low-volume filers

Of the 80 organisations returned by this search, 55 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filer rows overlap, one family can name several filers, so these counts cannot be summed into a coverage or concentration figure.

Counted in families, listed rows only (top 30 shown on page).
Technology
88.4%
of 225 families carry H04M

H04M is the most common IPC subclass here

H04M (telephonic communication) appears on 199 of the 225 families, the highest share among the subclasses in this dataset. H04Q follows at 30.7% and H04L at 15.1%; families can carry multiple classes so these shares overlap rather than partition the set.

Shares exceed 100% combined because classes overlap.
Legal status
10%
of 687 records in force

Granted-and-in-force share at retrieval

68 of 687 published records (10%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remaining 90% covers pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable statuses together, without a further breakdown available here.

Status at retrieval date only; it changes over time.
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 automatic call distributor agent queuing algorithm 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 Automatic Call Distributor Agent Queuing Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next

Where to take this next

The figures above describe what this search returned. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means reading specific claim sets, not family counts.

Pull the granted claims that matter to you

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent blocks. If a specific queuing approach needs clearing, read the granted claims of the relevant records directly.

Open Eureka to search full text →

Track the listed filers over time

The filer list here is a snapshot ordered by family count. Monitoring new publications from the same names as they appear lets you see shifts the static list cannot.

Set up filer tracking 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 Automatic Call Distributor Agent Queuing Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on ACD agent queuing patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Automatic Call Distributor Agent Queuing Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Automatic Call Distributor Agent Queuing Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole automatic call distributor agent queuing algorithm 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:(("automatic call distributor" OR ACD) AND (queu* OR "agent assignment") AND (telephone OR telephony OR "call center"))

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 (H04M) carries 88.4% 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 687 records and 225 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 (20 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 80 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 80 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 (68 of 687). 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.