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 →A 28-family dataset on correlation filter visual tracking patents, led by a three-way tie at 2 families each.
40 published records collapse into 28 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 25 of 40 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports a search for correlation filter and correlation tracking methods applied to object or visual tracking in video, matched against titles, abstracts and claims. The search carries no date limit, so the records span whatever filing years the matching documents happen to fall in. The result set totals 40 published records, consolidating to 28 simple patent families once filings for the same invention across jurisdictions are de-duplicated.
28 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, treat this page as a starting point for a deeper search rather than a map of who is active in visual tracking.
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 (12 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 29 of the 29 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 29 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.
Two views of the same 28-family dataset: when the underlying documents were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Records run from a single filing in 2012 up to a peak of 8 in 2017. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so the most recent part of the chart understates its eventual count 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 2012-2026 (38 records); the 40 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06T (image data processing & generation) appears on 21 of the 28 families, 75.0%. G06K (data recognition & presentation) and G06V (image/video recognition) each appear on 7 families, 25.0%, and H04N (pictorial communication) on 6, 21.4%. Because a family can carry more than one subclass, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 28 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 correlation filter based visual object tracking patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaUS11688077B2, assigned to Google LLC and published 2023-06-27, describes a machine-learned object tracking policy. A user device running several installed object trackers feeds the current video frame and prior object tracks to a trained policy engine that uses a reinforcement learning model to generate an object tracking plan.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 document in this dataset actually claims.
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 worth sitting with before treating any ranking here as settled.
Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Kunsan National University, and Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute each hold 2 of the 28 simple patent families (7.1%). No single filer in the listed set exceeds that count.
All 29 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filer rows are not mutually exclusive, one family can name several filers, so these rows are not additive and no combined share can be read from them.
25 of the 40 published records were granted and still in force on the 2026-10-21 retrieval date. This is a legal-status snapshot, not a measure of quality or a success rate, and it will keep changing as records lapse, expire or get challenged.
G06T (image data processing & generation) is carried by 21 of the 28 simple patent families, 75.0%. G06K and G06V each appear on 7 families (25.0%), and a family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares are not mutually exclusive.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to correlation filter based visual object tracking patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports counts. Turning counts into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision needs the underlying documents.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent covers. Read the granted claim set of any record that matters to a specific design before drawing conclusions about scope.
Open in EurekaThe filer table here shows 29 organisations returned by this search string; individual inventors and any filer outside the top results are not shown. A broader search in Eureka surfaces names this page does not.
Run a deeper searchThis search returned 40 published records, which consolidate to 28 simple patent families once filings for the same invention across multiple countries are de-duplicated. The search string has no date limit, so this count reflects whatever filing years happen to match, not a defined period. Because the underlying search terms are specific, this figure should be read as the result of one search string rather than an exhaustive count of every patent that touches correlation filter tracking.
No single filer stands out in this dataset: three entities, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Kunsan National University, and the Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute, are tied at 2 simple patent families each, the highest count among the 29 listed filers. All other listed filers hold 1 family. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer, so the rows overlap.
The IPC classification data shows G06T (image data processing & generation) on 21 of the 28 families, 75.0%, the largest share in this dataset. G06K (data recognition & presentation) and G06V (image/video recognition) each appear on 7 families (25.0%), and H04N (pictorial communication) on 6 families (21.4%). A family can carry multiple IPC codes, so these percentages add up to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive categories.
The filing trend chart shows published records by earliest filing year running from 1 record in 2012 to a peak of 8 in 2017, with years from 2022 onward still filling in as applications publish. Because publication lags behind filing by roughly 18 to 30 months, the most recent years understate their eventual totals and cannot be read as a decline. With only 28 families in the full dataset, year-to-year moves are too small a sample to support a trend conclusion either way.
25 of the 40 published records were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-21 retrieval date. This is a snapshot of legal status at one point in time, not an indicator of patent quality, enforceability strength, or commercial value, and it changes continuously as patents lapse, get renewed, or are challenged. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, or otherwise not in force, but this dataset does not break down which status applies to each.
Go past this page: query the whole correlation filter based visual object tracking 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:(("correlation filter" OR "correlation tracking") AND ("object tracking" OR "visual tracking") AND video)
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 (G06T) carries 75.0% 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 40 records and 28 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 (12 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 29 of the 29 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 29 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 2026-10-21.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (25 of 40). 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