https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/controller-pilot-data-link-communication-message-processing-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-26 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Aerospace & Propulsion

Controller Pilot Data Link Communication Message Processing Patents

A 73-family CPDLC message-processing patent search where one filer holds 69.9% and a long tail holds the rest.

211
Published Records
73
Simple Patent Families
52%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

211 published records collapse into 73 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 109 of 211 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 73 simple patent families and 211 published records are in scope for this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • One filer, Honeywell International Inc, is named on 51 of the 73 families (69.9%), the highest share of any row in the listed filers.
  • 12 of the 15 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each, against a leader at 51.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This search pulls records matching CPDLC or controller pilot data link together with message and processing terms, across every filing date the database holds. It returns 211 published records, which de-duplicate to 73 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is collapsed to one entry. At retrieval, 109 of the 211 records (52%) were granted and still in force; the remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that split is not broken out further here.

73 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of CPDLC technology as a whole, treat this page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished map.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC51
  2. ROCKWELL COLLINS INC4
  3. ARINC INC4
  4. OKI ELECTRIC INDUSTRY CO LTD2
  5. PORT & AIRPORT RES INST2
  6. THE BOEING CO2
  7. SITA INFORMATION NETWORKING COMPUTING UK LTD2
  8. CHINA ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY AVIONICS CO LTD1
  9. THALES SA1
  10. SATCOM DIRECT INC1

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 start with the same name (SITA INFORMATION NETWORKING COMPUTING UK LTD, SITA IT SERVICES FRANCE SAS). 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; 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 15 of the 15 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 15 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 Controller Pilot Data Link Communication Message Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data

Filing activity and technology composition

Two views of the same 73 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

Records run from a 2007 earliest-filing year up to 2026, with a peak of 29 records filed in 2015. Records with an earliest filing year from 2022 onward are still filling in as they work through publication, so the most recent years understate eventual totals, this is a publication-lag effect, not a drop in filing.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)081523301320072009201120132920152017201920212023202512022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

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 (203 records); the 211 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition (share of 73 families)

G08G (Traffic control systems) appears on 50 of the 73 families (68.5%), the highest share of any subclass. G06F (Electric digital data processing) follows at 12 families (16.4%) and H04B (Transmission, general) at 11 families (15.1%). Because a family can carry more than one subclass, these shares add to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive.

IPC subclass composition (share of 73 families)G08G · Traffic control systems5068.5%G06F · Electric digital data processi…1216.4%H04B · Transmission (general)1115.1%H04L · Digital information transmissi…1013.7%B64D · Aircraft equipment79.6%H04W · Wireless communication networks79.6%G01C · Distance, navigation & gyrosco…68.2%B64F · Ground installations for aircr…34.1%Other1317.8%

Shares are the percentage of the 73 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 Controller Pilot Data Link Communication Message Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Controller Pilot Data Link Communication Message Processing Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about controller pilot data link communication message processing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Representative Filing

A record from the result set

From the result set
US8791840B22014-07-29

Systems and methods for an active prompt for timed response controller pilot data link communication (CPDLC) messages

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

The abstract describes a system with a human machine interface that presents CPDLC information to a user, and a CPDLC computer that processes received CPDLC messages. The CPDLC computer stores received messages and starts a timer when a message is received, with a processing unit that instructs the interface to display the time remaining in the response period.This is simply the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate what one family in this pool actually claims.

US8791840B2, patent drawing 1US8791840B2, patent drawing 2
View full record

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 Controller Pilot Data Link Communication Message Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. 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
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 →
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 →
Key Figures

Reading the numbers

Four figures from this search, reported as counted, none of them support a ranking of importance or a judgement about the field.

Scope
73 families / 211 records
simple patent families / published records

Two different counts of the same search

The search returns 211 published records, which collapse to 73 simple patent families once the same invention filed in several countries is counted once. No date limit was applied to the query.

Family count de-duplicates across countries; record count does not.
Largest filer
51 of 73 (69.9%)
share of simple patent families

Honeywell International Inc named on 51 of 73 families

Honeywell International Inc is named on 51 of the 73 simple patent families in scope, a 69.9% share. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, and this figure belongs to this one row only.

Fifth-place row holds 2 families; tenth-place row holds 1.
Long tail
12 of 15 listed filers
filers holding 2 or fewer families

Most listed filers hold very few families

Of the 15 listed filers, 12 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. These rows are counted separately and are not summed into a combined share anywhere on this page.

Filer rows can overlap, so they are never added together.
Legal status
109 of 211 (52%)
records granted and in force

Just over half of records are granted and in force

At retrieval, 109 of the 211 published records (52%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not shown here.

Status is a snapshot at the retrieval date, 2026-10-26, and changes continuously.
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 controller pilot data link communication message processing patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Controller Pilot Data Link Communication Message Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Going beyond this page

This page reports what one search string returned. Narrowing or widening that string, or reading the underlying claim sets directly, is the next step for any decision that depends on scope.

Read the granted claims directly

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Pull the claim set for any family that matters to a specific design before drawing conclusions about freedom to operate.

Explore in Patsnap Eureka

Refine the search string

This search used one combination of CPDLC, message and processing terms. Adjacent terms or classification-only searches may surface families this string missed.

Run a refined search in Patsnap Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Controller Pilot Data Link Communication Message Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about this search

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Controller Pilot Data Link Communication Message Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Controller Pilot Data Link Communication Message Processing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole controller pilot data link communication message processing patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
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:((CPDLC OR "controller pilot data link") AND message AND process*)

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 (G08G) carries 68.5% 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 211 records and 73 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 15 of the 15 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 15 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 2026-10-26.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (109 of 211). 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.