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 →99 simple patent families and 163 published records on stack sheet cutting feed control, with filer and receiving-office detail.
163 published records collapse into 99 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 28 of 163 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This dataset gathers records matching a search string built around stack feeder or sheet stacking combined with cutting and feed, feeding or feed rate terms across titles, abstracts and claims. It returns 163 published records, which de-duplicate to 99 simple patent families once filings for the same invention across multiple countries are merged. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever the search string matched regardless of filing year; the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window and is not the full scope.
At 99 families, this is a small pool. The figures below are a starting point for a more targeted search, not a map of a field, and any pattern that looks thin may simply reflect where the search string did or did not reach.
Counted over all 163 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 49 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (4 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 83 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 83 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 two views below use different units: the trend counts published records by earliest filing year, while the technology split counts simple patent families, so the two numbers are not directly comparable.
Published records run from 2007 (1 record) through to a peak of 6 records in 2025. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications continue to publish, so the recent years understate the eventual count; this is a volume count of published documents, not a measure of invention 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. This chart covers 2007-2026 (49 records); the 163 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
B65H (web, sheet and filament handling) appears on 49.5% of the 99 simple patent families and B26D (cutting machines) on 19.2%. Since a family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares are not mutually exclusive and do not sum to 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 99 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 automatic stack sheet cutting machine feed control patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a sheet stacking device with a hopper unit to stack sheets, a feeding unit to feed sheets to the hopper, a distance detection unit that measures the vertical gap between the trailing edge of a preceding sheet and the leading edge of the following sheet, and an output unit that issues a behavior stabilization command for the sheet based on that measured distance.Shown because it is the first record returned under the database default order, not because it is the most cited, newest or broadest filing in this set.


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 without ranking the field or inferring what any filer is doing.
At the retrieval date, 28 of the 163 published records (17%) were granted and still in force. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further.
Canon KK and Ezra C Lundahl Inc are each named on 4 of the 99 simple patent families, tied for the highest count among the 83 listed filers. 81 of those 83 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is the measure of spread this dataset supports; filer rows are not summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer.
Among the 15 receiving offices returned, the largest record counts are United States (43), Japan (42), Europe/EPO (18), China (17), United Kingdom (14) and Finland (6). These are filing-location counts for published records, not an indication of where any filer is based.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to automatic stack sheet cutting machine feed control patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports counts and shares from one search string. Reading what any individual record actually covers requires the granted claims, not the abstract or the family count.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Before drawing any freedom-to-operate conclusion, read the granted claim set for the specific record in question.
Open Patsnap EurekaWith 99 families in scope, adjusting the search terms is likely to move the picture meaningfully. Use this page as a starting filter rather than a finished landscape.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaThis dataset returns 163 published records, which de-duplicate to 99 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is merged into one family. The search string combines stack feeder or sheet stacking terms with cutting and feed-related terms across titles, abstracts and claims, so it captures a specific phrasing rather than every related filing. No date limit was applied, so these figures span whatever the search matched rather than a fixed period.
No single filer holds the most. Canon KK and Ezra C Lundahl Inc are each named on 4 of the 99 simple patent families, tied for the highest count among the 83 listed filers. 81 of those 83 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so the filing pattern here is spread across many small holders rather than concentrated in one. Filer rows are not added together on this page because a single family can name more than one filer, which would overstate any combined figure.
Two IPC subclasses stand out by share of the 99 simple patent families in scope: B65H, web, sheet and filament handling, at 49.5%, and B26D, cutting machines, at 19.2%. A family can carry more than one IPC class, so these percentages overlap rather than summing to 100%. Other subclasses appear in the chart at smaller shares, but with this few families a low count is as likely to reflect the search terms missing related filings as it is to reflect an actual gap.
No. The dataset reflects one search string run with no date limit, returning 163 published records and 99 simple patent families, and the filer table shows only the top 30 of 83 listed organisations the search returned, with individual inventors removed from that list but still counted in the totals. At 99 families this is a small pool, so it should be treated as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a complete map of the field.
28 of the 163 published records, or 17%, were granted and still in force at the retrieval date of 2026-10-26. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not separate those categories out. Legal status changes continuously, so this figure is a snapshot rather than a fixed count, and it says nothing about the commercial value or claim strength of any record.
Go past this page: query the whole automatic stack sheet cutting machine feed control 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:(("stack feeder" OR "sheet stacking") AND cutting AND (feed OR feeding OR "feed rate"))
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. No subclass carries much of this set: the most common one is on 49.5% of the patent families and the set spans 52 subclasses in all. That can mean the technology genuinely sits across several areas, or that the search string is also matching adjacent work that happens to use the same words. This page cannot separate the two, and the result set is not screened by hand.
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 163 records and 99 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 (4 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 83 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 83 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 2026-10-26.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (28 of 163). 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.
This page