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 →58 patent families and 138 records on BCH decoder architectures for flash memory error correction, with filers and filing history.
138 published records collapse into 58 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 72 of 138 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports 58 simple patent families (138 published records) returned by a search for BCH decoder and flash memory error-correction terms across title, abstract and claims. The search string carries no date limit, so the records span whatever filing years the matching documents happen to fall in; the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window of that range. Records were filed through 10 receiving offices, with the United States, WIPO (PCT) and South Korea accounting for the largest counts among the offices listed.
With 58 families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat the page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a complete map of this technology.
Counted over all 138 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 131 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 (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 38 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 38 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.
The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing-trend chart counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Records run from 2007 (19 records) with a peak of 28 records in 2008. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications continue to publish, so the most recent years understate eventual totals and should not be read as a decline.
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 (131 records); the 138 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
H03M (coding & code conversion) appears on 65.5% of the 58 families, G06F (electric digital data processing) on 48.3%, and G11C (static & digital memories) on 31.0%. Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 58 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 bch code decoder architecture for flash memory error correction patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a concatenated BCH multi-stage decoding circuit with a first-stage encoding unit that BCH-encodes data input to a flash memory device and outputs a first BCH code or parity bit, an interleaving unit that interleaves a part or all of the input data, and a second-stage encoding unit that BCH-encodes the interleaved output and produces a second output.This is simply the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is presented to show what one record in this dataset actually claims, not as representative of the wider pool.


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 the dataset, reported as counted, without ranking the field or reading a trend into them.
Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology, Micron Technology, and Samsung Electronics each appear on 6 of the 58 simple patent families (10.3% each), the highest count among the 38 listed filers. No single filer holds more than the other two.
Of the 38 organisations the search returned, 34 are named on 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filer rows are not mutually exclusive, a family can name more than one filer, so these counts cannot be added together into a combined share.
38 of the 58 simple patent families (65.5%) carry an H03M classification (coding & code conversion), ahead of G06F at 48.3% and G11C at 31.0%. Families can carry more than one of these classes at once, so the three shares overlap and do not sum to a partition of the dataset.
72 of the 138 published records (52%) were granted and still in force on the 2026-10-21 retrieval date. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not available on this page.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to bch code decoder architecture for flash memory error correction patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures on this page describe what a single search string returned. The next steps depend on what you need to check.
Family and record counts cannot establish what any granted claim actually covers. Pull the claim set for any record that looks relevant before drawing a scope conclusion.
Open Patsnap EurekaA 58-family pool this size is sensitive to the exact search string used. Adjusting terms or classification filters in Patsnap Eureka can surface records this query did not capture.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaThis search returned 58 simple patent families, corresponding to 138 published records across 10 receiving offices. A family counts one invention regardless of how many countries it was filed in, while the record count includes every national or regional publication of that invention, so the two numbers describe the same pool from different angles. The search carries no date limit, so this is every matching record the string returned rather than a fixed recent window.
No single filer leads this dataset. Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology, Micron Technology, and Samsung Electronics are tied at 6 simple patent families each, the highest count among the 38 listed filers. The remaining filers sit well below that: 34 of the 38 hold 2 or fewer families each, so filing activity here is spread across a long tail rather than concentrated in one row.
H03M covers coding and code conversion, and it appears on 38 of the 58 simple patent families in scope (65.5%), the highest share of any IPC subclass here. G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 48.3% of families and G11C (static & digital memories) on 31.0%. Because a single family can carry more than one of these classifications, the shares overlap and add up to more than 100%, so they should not be read as a partition of the dataset.
72 of the 138 published records (52%) were granted and in force as of the 2026-10-21 retrieval date. The remainder fall into categories such as pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed, but that breakdown itself is not available on this page. In-force status changes continuously and reflects legal standing at a point in time, not a measure of the quality or value of any individual filing.
No. This page reports abstracts, classification codes and family counts, none of which establish what a granted claim actually requires. Determining whether any specific design falls inside or outside a claim requires reading the granted claim set and prosecution history of that specific patent directly. Treat this dataset as a way to identify candidate records worth that closer reading, not as a freedom-to-operate conclusion.
Go past this page: query the whole bch code decoder architecture for flash memory error correction 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:((BCH AND decoder) AND flash AND (error OR correction))
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 (H03M) carries 65.5% 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 138 records and 58 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 38 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 38 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 2026-10-21.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (72 of 138). 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