https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/data-curation-reference-data-cross-reference-table-management-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-16 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Data Curation & Reference Tables

Reference data and cross-reference table management patents

230 patent families on reference data and cross-reference table management, with filer concentration and a filing trend through 2026.

520
Published Records
230
Simple Patent Families
3%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
31%
In Force at Cut-off

520 published records collapse into 230 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA is named on 7 of the 230 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 163 of 520 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 230 simple patent families sit behind 520 published records on reference data and cross-reference table management, with no date limit applied to the search.
  • JPMorgan Chase Bank NA is named on 7 of the 230 families, the largest single filer row, while 71 of the 84 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • G06F appears on 66.1% of the 230 families in scope, the highest share of any IPC subclass returned by this search.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape tracks 230 simple patent families (520 published records) returned by a search for reference data and cross-reference table management combined with mapping or lookup terms. No start year was set, so the records span whatever filing dates the matching documents carry, and the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window rather than the full history.

Filer rows are organisations only, filings held by named individuals are stripped from the ranked list but remain inside every total and share quoted on this page. Because one family can name more than one filer, the rows in the table overlap and cannot be summed into a coverage or concentration figure.

Families by filer and by IPC subclass
  1. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA7
  2. ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES LTD6
  3. SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS CORP4
  4. SOFTBANK GROUP CORP4
  5. ORACLE INT CORP4
  6. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION4
  7. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD4
  8. BLUE YONDER GROUP INC3
  9. OP40 INC3
  10. WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC3

Counted over all 520 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 365 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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES LTD, ACCENTURE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD). 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. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (16 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 30 of the 84 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 84 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 Data Curation Reference Data Cross-Reference Table Management Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. 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
The Numbers

Filing trend and classification split

Two views of the same 230 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they sit in.

Filing trend, 2007–2026 (published records) (365 of 520 published records)

Published records by earliest filing year ran from 11 in 2007 to a peak of 38 in 2019, with 15 recorded for 2026 so far. Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing and are understated on the chart; this is a publication-lag effect, not a drop in filing.

Filing trend, 2007–2026 (published records) (365 of 520 published records)01020304011200720092011201320152017382019202120232025152022 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 (365 records); the 520 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition (share of 230 families)

G06F (electric digital data processing) carries the highest share at 66.1% of the 230 families, ahead of G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) at 31.3% and H04L (digital information transmission) at 18.7%. Families can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add up to more than 100%.

IPC subclass composition (share of 230 families)G06F · Electric digital data processi…15266.1%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…7231.3%H04L · Digital information transmissi…4318.7%G06N · Computing based on AI models198.3%H04N · Pictorial communication (video…198.3%G06T · Image data processing & genera…125.2%G06K · Data recognition & presentation73.0%G06V · Image/video recognition73.0%Other10646.1%

Shares are the percentage of the 230 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 Data Curation Reference Data Cross-Reference Table Management Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Data Curation Reference Data Cross-Reference Table Management Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about data curation reference data cross-reference table management patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Patent Spotlight

A representative record

From the result set
US11113197B22021-09-07

US11113197B2, Punctuation controlled temporal reference data lookup

MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC

A method for joining an event stream with reference data includes loading a plurality of reference data snapshots from a reference data source into a cache. Punctuation events are supplied that indicate temporal validity for the plurality of reference data snapshots in the cache. A logical barrier is provided that restricts a flow of data events in the event stream to a cache lookup operation based on the punctuation events. The cache lookup operation is performed with respect to the data events in the event stream that are permitted to cross the logical barrier.Filed by Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC and published 2021-09-07. This is the first record returned under the database default order, not a ranking by citations, novelty or scope.

US11113197B2, patent drawing 1US11113197B2, 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 Data Curation Reference Data Cross-Reference Table Management Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. 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 →
Signals

Reading the filer and technology data

These figures describe counts returned by the search. They say nothing about claim scope, validity or commercial value.

Filer concentration
7 of 230
largest single filer row

JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, 3.0% of families

JPMorgan Chase Bank NA is named on 7 of the 230 simple patent families in scope (3.0%). This is the largest single-row figure in the listed filers; because families can name more than one filer, this number cannot be added to any other row to produce a combined share.

Single-row share, not a group total
Distribution
71 of 84
filers with 2 or fewer families

A long tail across the listed filers

71 of the 84 listed filing organisations hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The list itself covers only organisations with at least one family and excludes individual-named filers, who remain inside the 230-family total.

Organisations only; individuals excluded from the ranked list
Technology split
66.1%
of families carry G06F

G06F carries the highest IPC share

G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 152 of the 230 families (66.1%), ahead of G06Q at 31.3% and H04L at 18.7%. Families can carry multiple IPC subclasses, so these shares do not sum to 100%.

Shares computed against the 230-family total
Legal status
31%
of records in force

163 of 520 records granted and in force

At the 2026-10-16 retrieval date, 163 of the 520 published records (31%) were granted and still in force. The remainder sit across pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined states that are not broken out individually in this dataset.

Status snapshot at retrieval, not a success rate
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 data curation reference data cross-reference table management 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 Data Curation Reference Data Cross-Reference Table Management Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Going deeper on this dataset

The figures here describe what the search returned. Narrowing the query or pulling granted claims directly is how to move from counts to a position.

Pull the granted claims

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent covers. For any record that matters to a filing decision, read the granted claim set directly.

Open Patsnap Eureka

Re-run with a narrower string

This search used broad reference-data and lookup terms; some of the smaller IPC subclasses it returned likely reflect that breadth rather than a distinct technology branch.

Refine the search in Patsnap Eureka

Track the listed filers

With 71 of 84 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families each, watching how new filings add to the smaller rows over time may be more informative than the single largest row.

Set up filer tracking 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 Data Curation Reference Data Cross-Reference Table Management Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Data Curation Reference Data Cross-Reference Table Management Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Data Curation Reference Data Cross-Reference Table Management Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole data curation reference data cross-reference table management 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:(("reference data" OR "cross reference table") AND manag* AND (mapping OR lookup))

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 (G06F) carries 66.1% 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 520 records and 230 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 (16 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 30 of the 84 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 84 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 2026-10-16.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (163 of 520). 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.