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/computerized-embroidery-pattern-data-digitizing-software-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Patent landscape snapshotComputerized Embroidery Pattern Data Digitizing Software Patents
12 families and 26 records cover embroidery pattern-digitizing software, with filings split thinly across a handful of named organisations.
26
Published Records
12
Simple Patent Families
19%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
26 published records collapse into 12 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 5 of 26 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 12 simple patent families and 26 published records make up this search with no date limit applied, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in.
- JUKI Corp holds the largest single share named on 2 of the 12 simple patent families (16.7%), with every other listed filer at 2 families or fewer.
- D05C (embroidering & tufting) and D05B (sewing) cover the bulk of the set at 58.3% and 41.7% of the 12 simple patent families respectively.
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This page reports results for the string TAC:(embroidery AND ("pattern data" OR digitiz*) AND software), matched against titles, abstracts and claims. It returns 12 simple patent families and 26 published records, with no date restriction applied to the query. Filing activity is concentrated in two IPC subclasses tied to embroidery and sewing machinery, alongside a handful of smaller classes that the search string also picked up.
At 12 families, this is a small pool. Treat the figures below as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the field: with this few documents, gaps are as likely to reflect search-term coverage as they are to reflect an absence of filing.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 26 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 19 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 (4 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 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.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Computerized Embroidery Pattern Data Digitizing Software Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The numbers
Filing trend and technology split
Two views of the same 12 families: how publications arrived over time, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (19 of 26 published records)
Records run from 2007 through 2026, with a peak of 10 records in 2017. The years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so recent counts 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 (19 records); the 26 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition (share of 12 simple patent families)
D05C (embroidering & tufting) appears on 58.3% of families and D05B (sewing) on 41.7%; classes can overlap within a family, so these shares add to more than 100%. A set of smaller classes also appears in the chart at lower shares.
Shares are the percentage of the 12 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 Computerized Embroidery Pattern Data Digitizing Software Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Computerized Embroidery Pattern Data Digitizing Software Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about computerized embroidery pattern data digitizing software patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRecord on file
A record from the result set
As filed
Embroidery method
Held by an individual, not an organisation
An embroidery method is provided. An individual can provide a design such as images of the parts of a human being. The embroidery method can have it converted into a digitized image and use same to generate customized embroidery that can be placed onto a product such as fabric. The embroidery method can enlarge the design in the first step or not.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set.
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 Computerized Embroidery Pattern Data Digitizing Software Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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 →Reading the data
What the figures show
Three figures from the dataset, reported as counted, with what each does and does not establish.
Largest filer
2 of 12 families
JUKI Corp
JUKI Corp is named on 2 of 12 simple patent families
That is a 16.7% share of the 12 simple patent families in scope, the highest single-row figure the listed filers return. The remaining listed filers each hold 2 or fewer families. A family count says nothing about the scope of any claim within it.
Listed filers are organisations only; named individuals are excluded from this list but counted in the totals.
Legal status
5 of 26
records in force
5 of the 26 published records were granted and still in force at retrieval
That is 19% of the 26 published records checked at the retrieval date of 2026-10-27. Legal status changes continuously and is not broken out further here, so it should not be read as a success rate for the set.
Status is recorded at the document level, not the family level.
Technology split
58.3% / 41.7%
D05C vs D05B
D05C and D05B carry the technology split for this set
D05C (embroidering & tufting) appears on 7 of 12 simple patent families and D05B (sewing) on 5 of 12. Because a family can carry both classes, these two shares add to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive.
Share denominator is 12 simple patent families throughout.
Filing offices
8 offices
receiving offices
Filings were lodged across 8 receiving offices
Counted in published records, the United States received 10, with Israel, Japan and WIPO (PCT) each at 4. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
Office counts are per record, so one invention can appear at more than one office.
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 computerized embroidery pattern data digitizing software 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 Computerized Embroidery Pattern Data Digitizing Software Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Where to take this
This page is a starting point built from one search string. Narrowing or widening the terms, or pulling granted claims directly, will change what shows up.
Pull the granted claims
Family and IPC counts describe where documents sit, not what any claim covers. Read the claim set directly before drawing conclusions about scope.
Open in EurekaRe-run with adjusted terms
At 12 families, this search string may miss adjacent filings or catch unrelated ones. Testing narrower and broader variants will show how sensitive the result is to wording.
Refine the searchTrack the listed filers
JUKI Corp and the other listed organisations can be monitored individually for new filings, since rows here are not rolled up to any corporate group.
Set up monitoringSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Computerized Embroidery Pattern Data Digitizing Software Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions
This search returns 12 simple patent families and 26 published records, with no date limit applied to the query. A family is one invention grouped across the countries it was filed in, while a record counts each publication separately, which is why the two totals differ. The figure depends entirely on the search string used, so a differently worded search over the same underlying filings could return a different count.
The search returns 6 organisations in a filer list ordered by volume, with JUKI Corp holding the largest single share at 2 of 12 simple patent families (16.7%). Every other listed filer holds 2 or fewer families, and filings held by named individuals are counted in the totals but excluded from this organisation list. Because one family can name more than one filer, these rows overlap and cannot be added together into a combined share.
Published records in this set run from 2007 through 2026, with a peak of 10 records in 2017 by earliest filing year. The years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings work through publication, which typically takes up to 18-30 months, so recent-year counts understate what will eventually appear. The chart counts documents, not inventions, so a change in the count can reflect the same invention being filed more or less widely rather than a change in how much is being filed.
Two IPC subclasses carry the bulk of this set: D05C (embroidering and tufting) on 7 of 12 simple patent families (58.3%) and D05B (sewing) on 5 of 12 (41.7%). Because a single family can be classified under both, these shares add to more than 100% rather than partitioning the set. A handful of other classes also appear in the underlying data at lower shares, which can reflect search-term noise as much as genuine coverage in those areas.
No. This is one search string returning 12 families from an unspecified date range, and the filer list is capped at the organisations the data endpoint returns, not a complete registry of every filer. Named individuals are stripped from the organisation list but remain inside every total and share quoted here. Treat the page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a complete map of filing activity in this area.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Computerized Embroidery Pattern Data Digitizing Software Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Computerized Embroidery Pattern Data Digitizing Software Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole computerized embroidery pattern data digitizing software 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:(embroidery AND ("pattern data" OR digitiz*) AND software)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 26 records and 12 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 (4 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 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 2026-10-27.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (5 of 26). 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.