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 →23 patent families and 52 records on computerized flat knitting pattern data generation, led by one filer with a long tail of smaller filers.
52 published records collapse into 23 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 17 of 52 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.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 combining flat knitting or V-bed knitting machine terms with pattern data, knitting program or design data generation language, restricted to computerized, CAD or software contexts. The search carries no date limit, so the set reflects every matching record the database holds, not a chosen period. It returns 52 published records that de-duplicate to 23 simple patent families, with a receiving-office spread that includes Europe (EPO), China and the United States among others.
23 families is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished map: a search string this specific can miss adjacent filings, and a dataset this size cannot support conclusions about concentration, trend or the state of a field.
Counted over all 52 published records, including filings from before 2008; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 28 records from 2008 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 8 of the 8 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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 a technology breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Counted in published records, by earliest filing year, from 2008 onward. The peak so far is 2009 at 8 records. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications continue to publish, so the recent end of the chart understates eventual totals; this applies to published filings generally and is not specific to this topic.
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 2008-2026 (28 records); the 52 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Counted against the 23 simple patent families in scope. D04B (Knitting) appears on 22 of the 23 families (95.7%); the chart shows the remaining subclasses returned by the search at smaller shares.
Shares are the percentage of the 23 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 computerized flat knitting pattern data generation system patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a knitting method for knit pants produced on a flat knitting machine. Knitting starts at a side part on one leg and ends at a side part on the other, with front and back knitted fabric parts formed so that the front part's length from side to crotch is shorter than the back part's. The method is tied to a knitting program used to direct the flat knitting machine through these steps.US20080229787A1, SHIMA SEIKI MFG., LTD., filed 2008-09-25. This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citation count, grant status or scope.


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 search, reported as counted, with what each one does and does not establish.
SHIMA SEIKI MFG LTD is named on 11 of the 23 simple patent families in this search (47.8%). This is a single-row share from the filer table; it says nothing about the other 7 listed filers' relationship to one another or to this one.
7 of the 8 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed filers are organisations only; individual-named filings are excluded from this table but remain inside the 23-family total.
17 of the 52 published records (33%) were granted and in force at the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed in some combination that is not broken out here, and this figure is a status snapshot, not a success rate.
D04B is recorded against 22 of the 23 simple patent families in scope (95.7%). Families can carry more than one IPC class, so this share is read against the family total directly and does not sum with other subclass shares shown on the chart.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to computerized flat knitting pattern data generation system patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page surfaces the search results; a closer read of specific records or a search run on an adjacent string is the next step for most uses.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Anyone assessing freedom to operate or overlap with a specific design needs to pull the claim set for the records in question.
Explore records in EurekaA 23-family pool this size is sensitive to the exact terms used. Running adjacent phrasing or broader machine-type terms in Eureka may surface records this search string did not catch.
Run a new search in EurekaThis search returns 52 published records that de-duplicate to 23 simple patent families, where a family groups the versions of one invention filed across different countries or offices. The search string has no date limit, so this is every matching record the database holds, not a slice of a particular period. Because the string is narrow and specific, it is likely to miss some records that use different terminology for the same kind of system, so treat 23 as a result count rather than a full count of everything that exists on the subject.
The filer table lists 8 organisations, ranked by the number of simple patent families each is named on, with SHIMA SEIKI MFG LTD at 11 of 23 families (47.8%), the largest single row. 7 of the 8 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate parent, and individual-named filings are excluded from this table but remain inside the overall family and record totals, so the listed rows do not add up to the full dataset.
SHIMA SEIKI MFG LTD is named on the largest number of families in this specific 23-family search result, 11 of 23 (47.8%). That is a count of families returned by one search string, not a measure of claim scope, validity, enforceability or commercial position, and the dataset has no information comparing this result against the wider field. Calling any single-search count a market leadership position goes beyond what the data supports.
The abstract describes a knitting method for knit pants on a flat knitting machine, where the front knitted fabric part is made shorter than the back part from side to crotch, tied to a knitting program that directs the machine through the steps. This is the first record returned by the database's default ordering, not a selection based on citations, scope or importance. An abstract summarises the invention in general terms; what the granted claims actually require, and how broadly they reach, has to be read from the claim set itself, not inferred from the summary.
The filing trend is counted in published records by earliest filing year, running from 2008 (1 record) with a peak of 8 records in 2009. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in because applications typically take roughly 18 months to publish, and longer for PCT applications entering national phase, so the most recent years understate the eventual count. The trend also counts published documents, not inventions, so one invention filed in several countries adds several marks to the same year.
At the 2026-10-27 retrieval date, 17 of the 52 published records (33%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records fall into pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable status, but that breakdown is not available on this page. In-force status is a snapshot at one point in time and changes as renewals fall due or applications are prosecuted further, so it should not be read as a measure of how successful or valuable any filing is.
Go past this page: query the whole computerized flat knitting pattern data generation system 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:(("flat knitting" OR "v-bed knitting") AND ("pattern data" OR "knitting program" OR "design data generation") AND (computer* OR CAD OR 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. One subclass (D04B) carries 95.7% 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 52 records and 23 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 8 of the 8 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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 (17 of 52). 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