https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/automatic-test-pattern-generation-algorithm-for-scan-based-testing-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-26 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Semiconductors & Microelectronics

Automatic Test Pattern Generation Patents for Scan-Based Testing

Analysis of 120 patent families on automatic test pattern generation for scan-based testing, covering filers, classes and legal status.

276
Published Records
120
Simple Patent Families
10%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
39%
In Force at Cut-off

276 published records collapse into 120 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. SYNTEST TECHNOLOGIES INC is named on 12 of the 120 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 In force = 107 of 276 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 120 simple patent families sit behind 276 published records on scan-based ATPG, with the largest single filer, Syntest Technologies Inc, named on 12 of the 120 families (10.0%).
  • 59 of the 70 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, pointing to a long tail of entities filing once or twice rather than a small group repeating filings.
  • 107 of 276 records (39%) were granted and still in force at retrieval, with the remainder pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape is built from a targeted search for records combining automatic test pattern generation or ATPG with scan chain or scan-based testing terminology. The search carries no date limit, so the 120 simple patent families and 276 published records in scope reflect every matching record the search string returns, not a fixed filing window.

Records are grouped into families by invention, so a single invention filed in several countries counts once as a family but once per country as a record. The filing-trend chart further down shows only a recent window of that activity and is not the full scope described here.

Families vs. published records
  1. SYNTEST TECHNOLOGIES INC12
  2. SYNOPSYS INC9
  3. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC8
  4. STMICROELECTRONICS INT NV7
  5. CADENCE DESIGN SYST INC4
  6. AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD4
  7. INTEL CORP4
  8. SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC3
  9. NXP BV3
  10. TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY3

Counted over all 276 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 170 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 (STMICROELECTRONICS INT NV, STMICROELECTRONICS SRL). 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 (18 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 70 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 70 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 Test Pattern Generation Algorithm for Scan-Based Testing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

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

Filing trend by earliest filing year (170 of 276 published records)

Published records by earliest filing year run from 6 in 2007 to 2 in 2026, with a peak of 23 reached in both 2009 and 2021. The window from 2022 onward is still filling in as records publish, so recent years understate eventual totals and should not be read as a decline.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (170 of 276 published records)0613192562007232009201120132015201720192320212023202522022 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 (170 records); the 276 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition

G01R (electric & magnetic measurement) appears on 106 of the 120 families (88.3%), and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 45 of the 120 (37.5%). Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive.

IPC subclass compositionG01R · Electric & magnetic measurement10688.3%G06F · Electric digital data processi…4537.5%G11C · Static & digital memories86.7%H01L · Semiconductor devices75.8%H03K · Pulse technique & logic circui…43.3%H04L · Digital information transmissi…32.5%H10D · Semiconductor devices (general)32.5%G09G · Display control circuits21.7%Other108.3%

Shares are the percentage of the 120 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 Test Pattern Generation Algorithm for Scan-Based Testing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Automatic Test Pattern Generation Algorithm for Scan-Based Testing Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about automatic test pattern generation algorithm for scan-based testing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example record

A record from the result set

First record returned
US20050172192A12005-08-04

Scan based ATPG test circuit, test method and scan chain reordering method

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

US20050172192A1, filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and published 2005-08-04, describes a scan-based ATPG test circuit and a scan chain reordering method. The abstract describes testing scan chains that contain unknown values which could affect a test result, using a scan test point circuit to stop those unknown values propagating, and reordering chains so unknown values fall in different clock cycles when two affected chains occupy a single test cycle.This is simply the first record returned by the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in scope.

US20050172192A1, patent drawing 1US20050172192A1, 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 Automatic Test Pattern Generation Algorithm for Scan-Based Testing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. 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 →
Patterns in the data

What the figures show

Three figures from the dataset describe how filing activity is distributed and classified, without ranking what any of it means for claim scope or strategy.

Largest filer
12 of 120 families
Syntest Technologies Inc

10.0% share on a single row

Syntest Technologies Inc is named on 12 of the 120 simple patent families in scope, a 10.0% share. This is the single-row figure the page shows; filer rows are not summed because the same family can name more than one filer.

Counted in simple patent families.
Long tail
59 of 70
listed filers

Most listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

Of the 70 listed filers, 59 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed filers are organisations only; filings held by named individuals are excluded from this list but remain in the overall totals.

Counted in simple patent families.
Technology split
88.3% / 37.5%
G01R / G06F

Two IPC subclasses cover most of the pool

G01R (electric & magnetic measurement) is attached to 106 of the 120 families (88.3%) and G06F (electric digital data processing) to 45 of the 120 (37.5%). The two shares overlap where a single family carries both classes, and together they do not partition the 120 families.

Counted in simple patent families; shares exceed 100% combined because classes overlap.
Legal status
107 of 276
in force at retrieval

39% of records were granted and in force

At the 2026-10-26 retrieval date, 107 of the 276 published records (39%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not available.

Counted in published records, status as of retrieval date.
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 test pattern generation algorithm for scan-based testing 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 Test Pattern Generation Algorithm for Scan-Based Testing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Working with this landscape in Eureka

The figures above describe what this search returned. Readers who need to go further than counts and shares can pull the underlying records directly.

Read the granted claims

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a claim covers. Where a specific filing matters to a design decision, pull its granted claim set and prosecution history in Patsnap Eureka before drawing any conclusion about scope.

Open Eureka

Track individual filers over time

Because filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and cannot be summed, tracking a specific entity's filings year over year in Patsnap Eureka gives a clearer read than any combined share on this page.

Explore filer activity
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 Test Pattern Generation Algorithm for Scan-Based Testing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about this landscape

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Automatic Test Pattern Generation Algorithm for Scan-Based Testing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Automatic Test Pattern Generation Algorithm for Scan-Based Testing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole automatic test pattern generation algorithm for scan-based testing 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 test pattern generation" OR ATPG) AND ("scan chain" OR "scan-based") AND testing)

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 (G01R) carries 88.3% 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 276 records and 120 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 (18 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 70 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 70 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 (107 of 276). 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.