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 →A 4-family, 11-record dataset on cloud nested virtualization isolation, with IBM named on half the families.
11 published records collapse into 4 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 4 of 11 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page is built from a single search string — TAC:(cloud AND "nested virtualization" AND (hypervisor OR "virtual machine monitor" OR isolation)), run with no date restriction. It returns 4 simple patent families and 11 published records, a count small enough that every figure below should be read as a description of this search result, not of a field.
With only 4 families in scope, this is a starting point for a manual search, not a map of the technology. Small counts like this are as likely to reflect gaps in the search terms as gaps in actual filing activity, so no conclusion about concentration, white space or trend should be drawn from it alone.
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; 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 3 of the 3 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 3 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 result: a filing-trend chart counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Records run from 2011, with a peak so far of 5 records in 2012. The chart shades 2022 onward because records filed in those years are still publishing; this dataset is too thin to read any further trend, growth rate or slowdown into the shape of the line.
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.
G06F, Electric digital data processing, appears on all 4 simple patent families in scope (100.0%). Other subclasses the chart displays sit well below this and are not broken out in the prose because the dataset cannot distinguish a genuine minor branch from search-string noise at this size.
Shares are the percentage of the 4 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 cloud nested virtualization hypervisor resource isolation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes selecting a machine as a management node running a hypervisor with nested virtualization capability, deploying cloud managers on management nodes, selecting host nodes running level-two hypervisors, and forming virtual clouds that each pair a cloud manager with a level-two hypervisor.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default order, not a ranking by citation, novelty or scope. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish that.


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 search result, reported without ranking or interpretation beyond what the numbers themselves state.
The search string returns 4 simple patent families, de-duplicated across countries, and 11 published records in total, with no date limit applied. These two counts use different units and are not interchangeable.
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 2 of the 4 simple patent families in scope (50.0%). The filer list contains organisations only and 3 entities are listed; this single-row figure is not added to any other row.
All 3 of the 3 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This count describes how thinly held the filings are among the listed rows; filer rows overlap and cannot be summed into a coverage or concentration percentage.
The search returned 2 receiving offices across the 11 published records: United States with 10 and India with 1. This describes where the applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cloud nested virtualization hypervisor resource isolation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports what one search string returns. Refining the query or pulling full claim sets requires a dedicated workspace.
A 4-family result this small may reflect the search string missing adjacent phrasing as much as it reflects actual filing activity. Widening the terms inside Patsnap Eureka can surface related families this exact string does not catch.
Open EurekaAbstracts and family counts cannot establish claim scope. Reading the granted claim set of US9292316B2 and the other records directly is the only way to assess what any one filing covers.
Explore the full record setThis search string returns 4 simple patent families and 11 published records, with no date limit applied to the query. The two counts are different units: a family is one invention de-duplicated across countries, while a record is one publication, so a single family can produce several records. Because the pool is this small, it should be treated as a sample returned by one search string rather than a full count of everything filed in this area.
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 2 of the 4 simple patent families in scope, the highest share of the 3 listed filers at 50.0%. The filer list excludes individually named inventors, though their filings remain inside the total counts, and it is capped at a limited number of organisations so it is not a complete picture of every entity working in this space. No filer row can be added to another to produce a combined share, because a single family can name more than one filer.
Its abstract describes a system for provisioning cloud environments using nested virtualization: selecting management nodes running a hypervisor with nested virtualization capability, deploying cloud managers, selecting host nodes running level-two hypervisors, and forming virtual clouds that pair a cloud manager with a level-two hypervisor. This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by importance or citation. What its granted claims actually require, and how far they reach, can only be established by reading the claim set itself, not from the abstract or from any family count.
The filing-trend chart counts published records by earliest filing year, running from 2011 with a peak so far of 5 records in 2012. Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing and are shaded on the chart, since filings typically take 18 to 30 months to appear after filing. With a dataset this size, year-to-year movement is too thin to support any statement about acceleration, slowdown or overall growth, and no growth rate is presented on this page.
Across the 11 published records, the search returned 2 receiving offices: the United States with 10 records and India with 1. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer or inventor is based, since no nationality or country-of-origin data is included in this dataset. No other receiving offices appeared in this particular search result.
Go past this page: query the whole cloud nested virtualization hypervisor resource isolation 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:(cloud AND "nested virtualization" AND (hypervisor OR "virtual machine monitor" OR isolation))
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 (G06F) carries 100.0% 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 11 records and 4 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. 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 3 of the 3 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 3 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 2026-10-20.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (4 of 11). 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