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 patent landscape review of data fusion algorithms for multi-sensor process analytical technology, covering filing trends, assignee concentration, IPC
This landscape tracks patent filings that combine data fusion or sensor fusion with multi-sensor architectures in the context of process analytical technology or pharmaceutical manufacturing. The scope is narrow by design: it isolates records where fusing signals from several sensors is the technical mechanism, not a passing mention. With only 11 published records in scope, this is a small, early-stage corpus rather than a mature, crowded field.
The dataset spans 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with receiving offices concentrated in India, Canada, Europe and the WIPO PCT route, plus a single China filing.
Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in published records, so one invention filed in several countries counts more than 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; 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 12 of the 12 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 12 is not the complete set of filers. A single record 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.
The two views below cover the same 11 records from different angles: one tracks when filings were published, the other shows which IPC subclasses the claims sit in.
Filings peaked at 5 records in 2018 and have not matched that level in any year since. The most recent years, including the partial 2026 count of 2, will read low relative to true filing activity because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
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.
G06F (electric digital data processing) and G06V (image and video recognition) each appear in 63.6% of the 11 records, with G05B (control and regulating systems) close behind at 54.5%. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100% and should be read as claim-space overlap, not as a partition of the dataset.
Shares are the percentage of the 11 published records in scope. One published record 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 data fusion algorithm for multi-sensor process analytical technology patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA monitoring apparatus, systems and methods for data collection in an industrial environment are disclosed. A system may include a data collector communicatively coupled to a plurality of input channels and to a network infrastructure, wherein the data collector collects data based on a selected data collection routine, a data storage structured to store a plurality of collector routes and collected data, a data acquisition circuit structured to interpret a plurality of detection values from the collected data, and a data analysis circuit structured to analyze the collected data and determine an aggregate rate of data being collected from the plurality of input channels, wherein if the aggregate rate exceeds a threshold, the system adjusts collection or triggers a response.Abstract shortened from the original filing.


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 findings stand out once the ranking, the trend and the IPC mix are read together.
Strong Force IoT Portfolio 2016 holds the leader position with 7 records, while fifth and tenth place each hold a single filing. That gap means most of the ranked field is individual academic or first-time applicants rather than competing corporate portfolios.
The trend rises to 5 records in 2018 and has not matched that level since, falling to 2 in the partial-year 2026 count. With only 11 records total, this is a thin trend line where single filings move the shape of the curve year to year.
G06F and G05B carry the bulk of claim activity, alongside G06V for image and video recognition. Pharmaceutical-specific hardware, such as A61J containers for medicine, appears in only one of the 11 records, marking it as an under-filed adjacency rather than a settled space.
The spread across India, Canada, Europe, the PCT route and a single China filing shows applicants have not settled on one primary jurisdiction. For a field this small, that spread also means office-level statistics should be read as directional rather than definitive.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to data fusion algorithm for multi-sensor process analytical technology patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The dataset points to specific next steps for anyone deciding whether to file, license or design around this claim space.
Pharmaceutical container and robotic-manipulator classes each show a single record, meaning multi-sensor fusion applied to dosing hardware or robotic handling in a pharmaceutical setting is largely unclaimed. A first mover with a well-drafted claim there would face little direct prior art.
Explore white space in EurekaWith 7 of 12 ranked positions, Strong Force IoT Portfolio 2016 sets the reference point for freedom-to-operate work in this space. Any new filing should be checked against its portfolio before claims are finalised.
Track assignee activity in EurekaThe 2025 and 2026 counts are provisional because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months. A follow-up pull in a year will show whether 2018's peak was a one-off or whether filing activity is quietly recovering.
Set a monitoring alert in EurekaThe dataset in scope contains 11 published records matching data fusion or sensor fusion combined with multi-sensor architectures in a process analytical or pharmaceutical context. This is a small, tightly scoped search rather than a broad technology field, so the count should not be compared directly to larger, more general sensor-fusion searches. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true number of filed applications for the most recent years is likely higher than currently published.
Strong Force IoT Portfolio 2016 LLC is the clear leader, holding 7 of the 12 positions in the assignee ranking. Beyond that leader, the ranking drops sharply to single-filing entrants at fifth and tenth place, indicating the rest of the field is made up of individual applicants rather than competing corporate programmes. Anyone assessing freedom to operate should treat the leading assignee's portfolio as the primary reference point.
Most records sit in electric digital data processing (G06F) and image or video recognition (G06V), each present in 63.6% of the 11 records, with control and regulating systems (G05B) close behind at 54.5%. AI-based computing methods (G06N) appear in 36.4% of records. Pharmaceutical-specific hardware classes such as containers for medicine (A61J) and robotic manipulators (B25J) each appear only once, showing claims are concentrated on the software and control layer rather than dosing or handling hardware.
The trend peaked at 5 records in 2018 and has not returned to that level in any subsequent year, with the partial 2026 count sitting at 2. With only 11 records total across the period, a growth rate cannot be reliably computed from this evidence, and single filings can shift the shape of the curve. Readers should treat the recent-year figures as provisional given typical publication lag.
The IPC composition shows heavy overlap in software, vision and control classes, but very thin coverage in pharmaceutical-specific hardware: containers for medicine (A61J), robotic manipulators (B25J) and railway systems (B61B) each appear in only one of the 11 records. That imbalance suggests claims tying multi-sensor data fusion directly to pharmaceutical dosing or handling hardware are comparatively under-filed relative to the general software and control layer.
Go past this page: query the whole data fusion algorithm for multi-sensor process analytical technology 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:(("data fusion" OR "sensor fusion") AND ("multi-sensor" OR "multiple sensor") AND ("process analytical" OR pharmaceutical))
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 63.6% of the published records, 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. 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 12 of the 12 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 12 is not every filer. One published record 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 shortly before the publication date shown above.
Legal status. Legal status was not available for this search, so no in-force figure is shown. 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