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 compact dataset of 11 patent families on cockpit cursor control and multi-function display interfaces, led by one filer with 6 of 11 families.
54 published records collapse into 11 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 40 of 54 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports a search for records matching cursor control device, trackball or control panel terms alongside cockpit or avionics context and a multi-function display or MFD reference. The search string carries no date limit, so the result set reflects whatever documents the terms matched, not a defined filing period. It returns 11 simple patent families across 54 published records, counted at different levels: a family is one invention, a record is one publication of it in one jurisdiction.
With only 11 families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat the page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the field: absence of a term or a filer here is far more likely to reflect what the search string caught than any genuine gap in filing.
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 6 of the 6 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 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.
Two views of the same 11 families: when matching records were first filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
The trend counts published records by earliest filing year, from 2007 through 2026, with a peak so far of 11 records in 2009. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so the most recent years understate eventual totals and should not be read as a decline. The series counts documents, not inventions, so a single invention filed in several countries adds more than one mark to 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. This chart covers 2007-2026 (53 records); the 54 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 4 of 11 families (36.4%), the highest share in scope. G01C (Distance, navigation & gyroscopes) follows at 3 of 11 (27.3%), with B64D (Aircraft equipment) and G06G (Analogue computers) each on 2 of 11 (18.2%). Because a family can carry more than one subclass, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive.
Shares are the percentage of the 11 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 cockpit cursor control device multi-function display interface patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a display system with a first display device that can render a cursor, and a separate multi-function display (MFD) with a stimuli-sensitive screen. A cursor control device (CCD) region on that screen generates a signal, in response to a sensed input, that controls the cursor on the first display device; the system also involves an avionics display.This is simply the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest document in the set. What the abstract describes is not the same as what the granted claims require: that has to be read from the claim set itself.


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, with their limits stated alongside each one.
THE BOEING CO is named on 6 of the 11 simple patent families in scope (54.5%). This is the share for that single row; it does not establish claim scope, validity or commercial weight, and filer rows on this page are not rolled up to corporate group.
5 of the 6 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filer rows overlap because one family can name more than one filer, so these counts cannot be added together into a combined share.
40 of the 54 published records (74%) were granted and in force at the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. This is a status snapshot that changes continuously; it is not a success rate and the remaining records are not broken out by status.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) is carried by 4 of the 11 families (36.4%), the highest share among the subclasses on this page. Because families can carry multiple IPC subclasses, this share is not exclusive of the others shown.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cockpit cursor control device multi-function display interface patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports counts from one search string. Confirming any of these figures against a live, adjustable search is a faster path than taking the snapshot as final.
A pool of 11 families is small enough that a slightly different term set could change the picture substantially. Testing synonyms for cursor control and display interface terms is the most direct way to check for coverage this page may have missed.
Open Eureka to rerun the searchFamily counts and abstracts describe what a document discusses, not what its claims require. Reading the claim set directly is the only way to assess scope for any record flagged here.
Explore full records in EurekaThis specific search returns 11 simple patent families, which correspond to 54 published records once every jurisdictional filing is counted. The search string carries no date limit, so this reflects every matching record the terms caught rather than a defined period. Because the pool is small, a different set of search terms could return a different count, so this figure should be read as a snapshot of one query, not a census of the technology.
Among the listed filers, THE BOEING CO is named on 6 of the 11 simple patent families in scope, the largest single-row share. Five of the six listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is a long tail rather than a concentrated field, though with only 11 families this is an arithmetic description, not evidence of market structure. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, so related entities, if any, appear as separate rows.
US8681109B2, assigned to HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC and issued 2014-03-25, describes a display system with a separate multi-function display carrying a stimuli-sensitive screen and a cursor control region that signals a cursor on a first display device, alongside an avionics display. The abstract describes the elements involved but does not establish what the granted claims actually require or how broadly they reach. Anyone assessing freedom to operate against this record needs to read the issued claim set directly rather than relying on the abstract.
The filing trend, counted in published records by earliest filing year, peaked so far at 11 records in 2009 and runs through 2026, but no growth rate is reported on this page because the dataset is too thin to support one. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so recent years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a decline. The trend also counts documents rather than inventions, so a single invention filed in multiple countries adds more than one record to the line.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) carries the highest share, appearing on 4 of the 11 families (36.4%), followed by G01C (Distance, navigation & gyroscopes) at 3 of 11 (27.3%). B64D (Aircraft equipment) and G06G (Analogue computers) each appear on 2 of 11 families (18.2%). Because a family can carry more than one IPC subclass, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be treated as mutually exclusive categories.
Go past this page: query the whole cockpit cursor control device multi-function display interface 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:(("cursor control device" OR trackball OR "control panel") AND (cockpit OR avionics) AND ("multi-function display" OR MFD))
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.
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 54 records and 11 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 6 of the 6 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 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 2026-10-15.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (40 of 54). 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