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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/barcode-and-qr-code-image-decoding-algorithm-processing-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-26 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Updated 2026Barcode and QR Code Decoding Algorithm Patents
Covers 37 simple patent families and 98 published records on barcode and QR code decoding algorithms, with no single filer ahead of the rest.
98
Published Records
37
Simple Patent Families
41%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
98 published records collapse into 37 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 40 of 98 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 37 simple patent families and 98 published records sit in scope here, with no date limit applied to the search string.
- Two filers tie at the top of the list, Zebra Technologies Corp and Hand Held Products Inc, each named on 3 of the 37 families.
- 26 of the 28 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, the clearest sign of how this list is spread across names rather than concentrated in one.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page gathers records matching a search string built around barcode decoding, QR code decoding and matrix code decoding, each required to appear alongside image and algorithm terms. The set totals 98 published records, which de-duplicate down to 37 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is collapsed to one entry. No date limit was applied, so the records span whatever years the underlying filings happen to cover.
At 37 families, this is a small pool. It is best read as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the field: absence of a name or a branch here is as likely to reflect the search terms as it is to reflect an absence of filings.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 98 published records, including filings from before 2010; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 80 records from 2010 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 (DIGIMARC CORP, DIGIMARC LLC). 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 (14 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 28 of the 28 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 28 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 Barcode and QR Code Image Decoding Algorithm Processing 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
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 mix
The figures below are drawn directly from the retrieved dataset: a filing trend counted in published records, and an IPC subclass breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (80 of 98 published records)
Published records run from 2 in 2010 to a peak of 13 in 2023, with 5 recorded for 2026 so far. Records filed from 2022 onward are still arriving as applications publish, so the most recent years understate their eventual count and no trend should be read into the recent dip.
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 2010-2026 (80 records); the 98 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass composition
G06K (data recognition and presentation) appears on 27 of the 37 families, 73.0%. G06F (electric digital data processing) and G06T (image data processing and generation) each appear on 7 families, 18.9% apiece. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 37 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 Barcode and QR Code Image Decoding Algorithm Processing 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 Barcode and QR Code Image Decoding Algorithm Processing Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about barcode and qr code image decoding algorithm processing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing
A record from the result set
First record returned
MINI-barcode reading module with flash memory management
HAND HELD PRODUCTS, INC.
A miniature barcode reading module for an electronic device minimizes the size of the memory of the processor die, allowing the module to be used in small form factor electronic devices. The module includes an image sensor package operative to scan a barcode and a processor die coupled to the image sensor package. The processor die may include a processor, a memory, a flash memory, a plurality of barcode scanning algorithms loaded into the flash memory, and an image capture port connected to the image sensor package. Barcode scanning firmware can determine whether a barcode decoding algorithm is loaded in memory and whether the loaded algorithm is the correct one.Shown under the database's default ordering, not as the most cited or broadest filing in scope. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, not from this abstract or the family count.
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 Barcode and QR Code Image Decoding Algorithm Processing 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
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 numbers show
Three figures summarise how filings in this set are distributed, without adding anything the dataset cannot support.
Top count
3 of 37
families named on the top row
No single largest filer
Zebra Technologies Corp and Hand Held Products Inc are each named on 3 of the 37 simple patent families in scope (8.1% each). Two rows share this count, so the list has no single row ahead of the rest at the top.
Counted in simple patent families.
Spread
26 of 28
listed filers hold 2 or fewer families
A spread list of filers
26 of the 28 listed filers are named on 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The list covers organisations only; filings held by named individuals are excluded from the list but remain inside the 37-family total.
Counted in simple patent families; filer rows are not summed.
Technology mix
73.0%
of families carry G06K
G06K appears on most families
G06K (data recognition and presentation) is the IPC subclass attached to the most families here, 27 of 37 (73.0%). G06F and G06T each appear on 7 families (18.9%). A family can carry more than one subclass, so these percentages add up to more than 100%.
Counted in simple patent families; one family can carry several IPC classes.
Legal status
40 of 98
records granted and in force
Status at the retrieval date
40 of the 98 published records (41%) were granted and in force as of the 2026-10-26 retrieval date. This is a snapshot of legal status at one point in time, not a measure of the quality or value of any filing.
Counted in published records; status changes continuously.
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 barcode and qr code image decoding algorithm processing patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Barcode and QR Code Image Decoding Algorithm Processing 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
Where to go from here
Next steps for a closer read
This page is a starting point built from one search string. The following moves help narrow it toward an actual question.
Pull the full claim sets
A family count or an abstract cannot tell you what a granted claim requires. Reading the claim set directly is the only way to assess any one filing against a specific design.
Open a record in EurekaRe-run the search with added terms
Because the filer list and subclass mix reflect one search string with no date limit, adding or narrowing terms is likely to shift both the family count and which names appear.
Refine the search in EurekaCheck legal status on any filing of interest
41% of the 98 published records were in force at retrieval, a figure that changes over time. Confirm current status before relying on it.
Check status in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Barcode and QR Code Image Decoding Algorithm Processing 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 dataset
This particular search returns 98 published records, which collapse to 37 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. No date limit was applied to the search string, so this reflects whatever years the matching filings happen to span rather than a fixed period. The true count for the underlying technology could be larger or smaller depending on how the search terms are drawn, since a broad or narrow string changes what gets caught.
In this dataset, no single filer holds the most. Zebra Technologies Corp and Hand Held Products Inc are tied at the top, each named on 3 of the 37 simple patent families. 26 of the 28 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, and the list covers organisations only, so filings by named individuals sit inside the totals but not in the named rows.
No. One simple patent family can name more than one filer, so the rows in a filer list overlap rather than partition the dataset. Adding rows together, such as a top-five or top-ten share, over-counts by an amount this dataset cannot quantify, which is why no combined share is printed on this page. Any share quoted here applies to a single named row only.
G06K, covering data recognition and presentation, appears on 27 of the 37 families in scope (73.0%), the highest share of any subclass tracked here. G06F (electric digital data processing) and G06T (image data processing and generation) each appear on 7 families (18.9%). Because a family can carry several IPC classes at once, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be read as a strict partition of the dataset.
Published records in this set run from 2 in 2010 up to a peak of 13 in 2023, counted by earliest filing year. Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing, since most routes take around 18 months to publish and some PCT filings take up to 30 months to enter national phase, so the most recent years are understated and should not be read as a slowdown. The chart also counts published records rather than de-duplicated inventions, so a rising or falling line can reflect filing-location choices as much as the number of underlying inventions.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Barcode and QR Code Image Decoding Algorithm Processing 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 Barcode and QR Code Image Decoding Algorithm Processing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole barcode and qr code image decoding algorithm processing patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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:(("barcode decoding" OR "QR code decoding" OR "matrix code decoding") AND image AND algorithm)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 (G06K) carries 73.0% 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 98 records and 37 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 (14 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 28 of the 28 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 28 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 (40 of 98). 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.