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/convolutional-code-viterbi-decoder-architecture-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent LandscapeConvolutional Code Viterbi Decoder Architecture Patents
12 families, 26 records on Viterbi decoder architecture: 10 filers tie at the top with no single leader.
26
Published Records
12
Simple Patent Families
15%
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 In force = 4 of 26 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.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 sit in scope, with no date limit applied to the search string.
- Ten filers share the top count of 1 family each, so no single organisation holds more families than the rest of the listed filers.
- H03M coding and code conversion appears on 11 of the 12 families (91.7%), the highest share of any IPC subclass named in this set.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This dataset gathers published records whose title, abstract or claims combine "convolutional code" or "convolutional coding" with "Viterbi decoder" or "Viterbi decoding" and the word "architecture". No date limit was applied, so the 26 published records and 12 simple patent families returned span whatever years the matching documents happen to fall in, not a chosen recent period.
With only 12 families in scope, this is a small pool: it is a starting point for a closer search in Eureka, not a map of the whole field of convolutional coding or Viterbi decoding.
Records and families in scope
Counted over all 26 published records, including filings from before 2008; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 14 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 (9 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 10 of the 10 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 10 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 Convolutional Code Viterbi Decoder Architecture 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
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
Data
Filings, filers and technology split
These figures come from 26 published records that de-duplicate to 12 simple patent families, with no date limit applied to the search string.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (14 of 26 published records)
The chart shows published records from 2008, the first year in this window, at 6 records, down to 2026 at 0. Records filed before 2008 sit outside the chart, and years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later publications arrive, so no trend judgement is drawn from the shape of this 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 2008-2026 (14 records); the 26 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2008 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.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
Of the 12 simple patent families in scope, H03M (Coding & code conversion) appears on 11 (91.7%) and H04L (Digital information transmission) on 5 (41.7%); a family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add to more than 100%.
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 Convolutional Code Viterbi Decoder Architecture 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 Convolutional Code Viterbi Decoder Architecture Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about convolutional code viterbi decoder architecture patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRecord in focus
A record from this result set
As returned by the search
Optimized Viterbi decoder and GNSS receiver
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
A Viterbi decoder which is based on a special instruction set implemented in the processor, enabling it to handle the Viterbi processing with a much lower CPU loading without significantly increasing the hardware complexity. By careful application of appropriate design constraints specific to the SV navigation and analysis of the Viterbi algorithm an optimised architecture can be realized for embedding Viterbi acceleration logic efficiently into a GNSS chipset.This is simply the first record the search returns under the database's default order, 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 Convolutional Code Viterbi Decoder Architecture 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 →Signals in the data
What the numbers show
Three figures from the 12 families and 26 records in scope, reported as counted, not ranked by importance.
Family count
12
simple patent families
Scope of the dataset
26 published records de-duplicate to 12 simple patent families. No date limit was applied to the search string, so this is the full set of matching records the search returned, not a bounded recent window.
Records vs families
Filer concentration
10 of 10
listed filers hold ≤2 families each
Spread across listed filers
Ten filers are listed, and the top count is a tie: 10 organisations are each named on 1 of the 12 families. All 10 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer.
Filer rows overlap
Technology split
91.7%
of families carry IPC H03M
Coding and code conversion subclass
11 of the 12 simple patent families carry IPC subclass H03M (coding and code conversion); 5 of 12 (41.7%) also carry H04L (digital information transmission). A family can carry both, so the shares add to more than 100%.
Shares, not a partition
Legal status
4 of 26
records in force at retrieval
Status at the data pull
4 of the 26 published records (15%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remaining records cover other statuses that are not broken out individually on this page.
Status at retrieval only
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 convolutional code viterbi decoder architecture 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 Convolutional Code Viterbi Decoder Architecture 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 next
These figures describe what one search string returned. Refining the terms or widening the classification scope in Eureka can test whether the pattern holds.
Check the granted claims directly
An abstract and a family count cannot tell you what a patent's claims cover. Pull the granted claim set for any record that matters to a design decision.
Open a record in EurekaWiden or adjust the search terms
This string is narrow by construction. Related wording for the same decoder concepts may sit outside it and change the filer list or the technology split.
Rerun the search in EurekaWatch legal status over time
4 of the 26 records were in force at retrieval. That status changes continuously, so a fresh pull will show a different figure.
Track status in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Convolutional Code Viterbi Decoder Architecture 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 about this dataset
This search returns 26 published records, which de-duplicate to 12 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. The search string requires "convolutional code" or "convolutional coding" together with "Viterbi decoder" or "Viterbi decoding" and the word "architecture" to appear in the title, abstract or claims. No date limit was applied, so this is every matching record the search returned rather than a window bounded to recent years. A different phrasing of the same technical idea that does not use these exact terms would not be captured here.
There is no single largest filer in this dataset: 10 organisations are each named on 1 of the 12 simple patent families in scope, so the top count is a tie rather than a ranking. All 10 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is the honest way to describe how spread out this list is. Filer rows cannot be added together to produce a combined share, because one family can name more than one filer and the rows overlap in ways this page cannot separate. The filer list also excludes filings held by named individuals, which still count toward the 12-family total but do not appear as rows.
Of the 12 simple patent families, 11 (91.7%) carry the IPC subclass H03M, which covers coding and code conversion, and 5 (41.7%) carry H04L, digital information transmission. A family can be classified under more than one subclass, so these two shares add up to more than 100% rather than partitioning the set. Other subclasses appear in the underlying data at lower shares and are shown on the chart but are not detailed in this text because a small pool like this cannot reliably separate a genuine minor branch from a false keyword match.
No growth or decline figure is presented on this page, and none should be inferred from the yearly counts shown. The filing-trend chart covers published records by earliest filing year from 2008 through 2026, but publication lags filing by up to 30 months, so the years from 2022 onward are still filling in and will show higher counts once later publications arrive. With only 12 families in total, year-to-year movement in a chart like this reflects a handful of documents and is not a reliable signal of direction. Treat the chart as a record of what has published so far, not a trend line.
US8621335B2, assigned to Qualcomm Incorporated, describes a Viterbi decoder built around a special processor instruction set intended to lower CPU loading without materially increasing hardware complexity, applied to a GNSS receiver chipset. It is simply the first record this particular search returns under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or most representative filing in the set. An abstract summarises the invention but does not state what the granted claims actually require; claim scope has to be read from the granted claim set and prosecution history directly. This page cannot and does not offer a freedom-to-operate or infringement reading on this or any other record.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Convolutional Code Viterbi Decoder Architecture 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 Convolutional Code Viterbi Decoder Architecture Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole convolutional code viterbi decoder architecture 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:(("convolutional code" OR "convolutional coding") AND ("Viterbi decoder" OR "Viterbi decoding") AND architecture)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 (H03M) carries 91.7% 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 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 (9 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 10 of the 10 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 10 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 (4 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.