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 →427 patent families and 918 records on database backup compression selection, led by a filer with just 2.6% share.
918 published records collapse into 427 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. EMC IP HLDG CO LLC is named on 11 of the 427 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 In force = 299 of 918 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape covers 427 simple patent families and 918 published records matching a search for database backup operations combined with compression or compression-algorithm terms. No date limit was applied to the underlying search, so the records span whatever years the matching documents happen to have been filed in, and the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window of that activity rather than the full scope.
Two IPC subclasses carry a large share of the families: G06F (Electric digital data processing) on 72.1% and H04L (Digital information transmission) on 18.7%. A record can carry more than one classification, so these shares add up to more than the family total, which is expected rather than an error in the count.
Counted over all 918 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 655 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 share the name LANGCHAO (SHANDONG LANGCHAO YUNTOU INFORMATION TECH CO LTD, LANGCHAO ELECTRONIC INFORMATION IND CO 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (6 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 94 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 94 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.
The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: one count per publication for the trend, one count per invention for the family and filer totals, and one classification tag per record for the technology split.
Records run from 49 in 2007 to a peak of 56 in both 2010 and 2023, before tapering to 15 by 2026. The years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications continue to publish, so the recent taper should not be read as a decline in filing activity.
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 (655 records); the 918 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06F accounts for 72.1% of families and H04L for 18.7%; the remaining subclasses shown on the chart each sit at a lower share and are not discussed individually here.
Shares are the percentage of the 427 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 database backup compression algorithm selection for storage efficiency patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes differential or selective data transformation, including compression and/or encryption, applied to selected data subsets (such as table spaces) of a database during a single backup operation. A backup utility obtains data from multiple data subsets of a source database, with at least one subset specified for transformation and others not, then writes a single backup image incorporating the selected transformation to archive media.This is simply the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, not inferred from this abstract.


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 →These cards report individual figures from the dataset as counted. None of them should be read as a ranking of quality, strategy or market position.
EMC IP Holding Co LLC is named on 11 of the 427 simple patent families in scope, a 2.6% share. This is a count of named families only; it says nothing about claim scope or enforceability.
Of the 94 listed filers, 76 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The remaining rows, including the largest at 11 families, account for the rest of the 191 families attributed across the listed rows, which is less than the 427-family total because the list excludes individually named inventors.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) is tagged on 72.1% of the 427 families, and H04L (Digital information transmission) on 18.7%. Because a family can carry multiple classifications, these two figures are not mutually exclusive and do not sum against each other.
At the 2026-10-26 retrieval date, 299 of the 918 published records (33%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records fall into other statuses not broken out here, and in-force status is a point-in-time legal fact rather than a measure of commercial value.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to database backup compression algorithm selection for storage efficiency patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures above are a starting point for narrower questions about specific filers, classifications or individual records.
Family counts and abstracts cannot establish what any patent actually covers. Reading the granted claim set is the only way to assess a specific filing against a specific design.
Explore claim data in Eureka →Filer rows in this dataset are not rolled up to corporate group, so monitoring a single entity's filings over time requires tracking that exact name rather than an assumed family of related companies.
Set up filer tracking in Eureka →Recent filing years in this dataset are still filling in as applications publish, so re-checking the trend periodically gives a more complete picture than reading the current taper as a decline.
Monitor filing trends in Eureka →This dataset contains 427 simple patent families and 918 published records matching a search for database backup operations combined with compression or compression-algorithm terms. Families de-duplicate the same invention across countries, while records count each publication separately, so the two numbers measure different things. No date limit was applied to the search, so this reflects every matching record the search string returned, not a fixed year range.
EMC IP Holding Co LLC is named on the largest number of families in this set, 11 of 427 (2.6%). The fifth-placed filer holds 5 families and the tenth-placed filer holds 3, and 76 of the 94 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. These are simple counts of named families and do not indicate claim strength, portfolio value or commercial position.
US10452485B2, assigned to International Business Machines Corporation and published 2019-10-22, describes selective data transformation (including compression and/or encryption) applied to chosen data subsets, such as table spaces, during a single database backup operation. Its abstract describes a backup utility that obtains data from multiple subsets, with at least one marked for transformation and others left unchanged, before writing a single backup image. This abstract and the family data on this page cannot establish what the granted claims actually require or how broadly they reach; that has to be read from the claim set itself.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 72.1% of the 427 simple patent families, the highest share of any IPC subclass in this dataset, and H04L (Digital information transmission) appears on 18.7%. Because a single family can carry more than one classification, these shares are not mutually exclusive and add up to more than 100% together. Other subclasses appear in the underlying chart at lower shares.
The dataset was retrieved on 2026-10-26 and applies no date limit, so it includes every matching record available at that point regardless of filing year. The filing-trend chart shows only a recent window, and its most recent years are still filling in because of publication lag, which runs up to 18 months for most filing routes and up to 30 months where an application enters national phase via the PCT. For that reason, the most recent two to four years on the trend understate eventual totals and should not be read as a drop in activity.
Go past this page: query the whole database backup compression algorithm selection for storage efficiency 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:((database) AND (backup) AND (compress* OR "compression algorithm"))
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 72.1% 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 918 records and 427 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 (6 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 94 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 94 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 (299 of 918). 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