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 →119 patent families and 400 records on CDMA spreading code allocation; one filer holds 11 families, most hold two or fewer.
400 published records collapse into 119 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL) is named on 11 of the 119 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 In force = 23 of 400 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape is built from a search string that requires CDMA or code division multiplexing together with a spreading code or spreading sequence term and the word allocation appearing in the same record. That combination returns 400 published records, which de-duplicate across countries to 119 simple patent families. No date limit was set, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a chosen range.
Because the query is built around the word allocation specifically, the set is narrower than CDMA or spreading-code filings as a whole: it is scoped to filings that describe assigning or distributing spreading codes or sequences among users or channels, not to CDMA technology or spreading-code techniques in general.
Counted over all 400 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 64 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 share the name PHILIPS (US PHILIPS CORP, KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV). 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 (20 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 65 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 65 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
These figures are drawn from 400 published records and 119 simple patent families returned by the search string, covering whatever years the matching records happen to span rather than a fixed date range.
Published records by earliest filing year, from 2007 (22 records, the highest year in this window) through 2026. Years from 2022 onward are shaded because records filed in those years are still publishing and the counts will rise.
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 (64 records); the 400 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2007 is the highest year shown, but it is also the first year in the window: earlier filings sit outside this chart, so this is not necessarily the historical peak.
Share of the 119 simple patent families carrying each IPC subclass. A family can carry more than one subclass, so the shares add up to more than 100%; H04B (78.2%), H04J (58.0%), H04W (50.4%), H04L (46.2%) and H04Q (22.7%) are the subclasses carried on at least a fifth of families in scope.
Shares are the percentage of the 119 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 code division multiplexing spreading sequence allocation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA method for supporting P2P communication between two user equipments in TDD CDMA systems, performed by user equipment, comprising: receiving signals transferred via the downlink control channel from network system; acquiring the timeslot allocation information and the spreading code allocation information of other active user equipments allocated in the specific downlink timeslot associated with the direct link used by said user equipments, according to the received signals; and synchronizing the P2P communication signals received by the user equipment and signals from network system, according to the acquired timeslot allocation information and spreading code allocation information.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not a ranking by citations, novelty or importance. Reading what any granted claim actually covers requires the claim set itself, not the abstract.


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 this dataset are worth reading carefully alongside their denominators, since each is a count rather than a judgement about strength, maturity or field size.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) is named on 11 of the 119 simple patent families in scope, 9.2%. This is the largest figure among the 65 listed filers; it says nothing about claim scope or enforceability, and filer rows overlap so this figure cannot be added to any other row's share.
51 of the 65 listed filers in this dataset hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This is the measure of spread the page reports; it does not imply those filers are inactive elsewhere, since the filer list excludes filings held by named individuals even though those filings remain in every total.
H04B (transmission, general) is carried on 78.2% of the 119 simple patent families, ahead of H04J at 58.0%, H04W at 50.4%, H04L at 46.2% and H04Q at 22.7%. These shares sum to more than 100% because a family can carry several IPC subclasses at once.
23 of the 400 published records, 6%, were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remaining 94% sit in pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined states that are not broken out further; this is a status snapshot, not a success rate.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to code division multiplexing spreading sequence allocation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures on this page describe counts and shares; turning them into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision needs the underlying claim sets and a tool built to search and compare them directly.
A family count or an abstract cannot tell you what a granted claim actually requires. Pull the claim set for any record that matters before concluding it blocks or clears a design.
Search claims in Eureka51 of 65 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each today. Monitoring new filings as they publish shows whether that spread changes.
Set up monitoring in EurekaH04B, H04J and H04W cover different slices of this set, each on a different share of the 119 families. Compare your own technology definition against these subclasses directly.
Explore IPC breakdowns in EurekaThis search returns 400 published records that de-duplicate to 119 simple patent families, where a family groups together all the country-level filings of the same underlying invention. The search string requires CDMA or code division multiplexing together with a spreading code or spreading sequence term and the word allocation, so it is scoped to allocation-specific filings rather than CDMA or spreading-code technology generally. No date limit was applied, so this set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) is named on 11 of the 119 simple patent families, 9.2% of the set, the largest single-row figure among the 65 listed filers. The fifth-placed filer holds 5 families and the tenth-placed filer holds 3, and 51 of the 65 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name several filers, so a top-five or top-ten total is not a figure this dataset supports; a family count also says nothing about the scope or strength of any filer's claims.
IPC subclass H04B (transmission, general) appears on 78.2% of the 119 simple patent families, followed by H04J (multiplex communication) at 58.0%, H04W (wireless communication networks) at 50.4%, H04L (digital information transmission) at 46.2% and H04Q (switching and selecting) at 22.7%. These shares add up to more than 100% because a single family often carries more than one subclass. The set spans 16 subclasses in total, with the remainder each carried on a smaller slice of families.
Counting published records rather than families, the largest receiving offices in this set are the United States (85 records), South Korea (82), the European Patent Office (70), the WIPO PCT route (37), Australia (27) and Canada (13), out of 26 receiving offices returned in total. Because one invention can be filed at several offices, these figures count filing events, not distinct inventions, and the six largest offices listed here do not add up to the full record total. The office breakdown shows where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
At the retrieval date, 23 of the 400 published records, 6%, were granted and currently in force. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable from the data, and that breakdown is not separated out further here. In-force status is a snapshot that changes continuously as patents are granted, renewed or allowed to lapse, so it should not be read as a measure of how many filings in this space succeeded.
Go past this page: query the whole code division multiplexing spreading sequence allocation 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:(("code division multiplex*" OR CDMA) AND ("spreading code" OR "spreading sequence") AND allocation)
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 (H04B) carries 78.2% 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 400 records and 119 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 (20 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 65 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 65 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 2026-10-27.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (23 of 400). 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.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.
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