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 dataset of 8 patent families on database query cache key normalization, led by Microsoft Technology Licensing at 2 families.
26 published records collapse into 8 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 16 of 26 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page draws on a search for records that combine database with "query cache" or "plan cache" and either parameterization or "key normalization" in the title, abstract or claims. It returns 8 simple patent families and 26 published records with no filing-date restriction, so the set spans whatever years the matching documents happen to fall in rather than a chosen window.
Eight families is a small pool. The figures below describe exactly what this search returned, not the size or maturity of a broader field, and the page is best used as a starting point for a deeper search rather than a map of query-caching patent activity.
Counted over all 26 published records, including filings from before 2009; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 24 records from 2009 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 (5 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 7 of the 7 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 7 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 two charts below use different units: the filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, while the classification breakdown counts simple patent families.
Records run from 2009 (6 records, with 2 earlier records sitting outside this window) through to 2026. The 2022-onward stretch is still filling in as later filings publish, so recent years understate eventual totals; no growth rate is shown because the dataset is too thin to support one.
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 2009-2026 (24 records); the 26 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2009 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.
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on all 8 families in scope (100.0%). Other subclasses returned by the search sit at low shares and are not broken out in the text; the chart shows the full spread.
Shares are the percentage of the 8 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 query cache key normalization for parameterized statements patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes receiving a query made up of a set of statements, populating a compilation context from the query, and invoking a compiler to run a compilation process against that context. It performs a lookup on a stored plan cache for an exact match using the compilation context, and where an exact match is found, determines whether the plan requires re-compilation based on a data-dependent optimization.This is the first record returned by the search under its default ordering, not a ranking by citations, novelty or breadth. The abstract describes what is claimed in outline only; what the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself.


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 from this dataset, reported without ranking the field or guessing at strategy behind them.
The search returns 8 simple patent families and 26 published records, with no date limit applied. A family can generate several published records across different offices, which is why the record count runs higher than the family count.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC is named on 2 of the 8 simple patent families in scope, the highest count of any of the 7 listed filers. The other 6 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each; filer rows are not summed here because a family can name more than one filer.
All 8 simple patent families carry the IPC subclass G06F (electric digital data processing). No other subclass in this result reaches a share worth reporting against the same 8-family base.
16 of the 26 published records were granted and in force when the data was pulled on 2026-10-26. The remaining records cover a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined statuses that are not separately broken out here.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to database query cache key normalization for parameterized statements patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports counts, not claim scope. The next steps depend on what decision you are trying to make.
Family and record counts cannot tell you what any single patent's claims cover. Pull the granted claim set for any record that matters to a specific design before drawing a conclusion about it.
Open the record in EurekaThis dataset came from one fixed search string with no date limit. Adjusting the terms for query cache, plan cache or key normalization will change which of the 8 families appear and may surface others this string did not catch.
Rebuild the search in EurekaThe 7 listed filers are organisations only; individual-named filings sit inside the totals but not in the table. Searching by name directly in Eureka will surface filings this landscape view does not show.
Search filers in EurekaA search combining database, query cache or plan cache, and parameterization or key normalization terms returns 8 simple patent families and 26 published records, with no date restriction applied. The record count is higher than the family count because a single invention can generate several published records across different patent offices. This is the result of one specific search string, not a count of every patent that might touch this topic under different wording.
Among the 7 listed filers returned by this search, Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC is named on 2 of the 8 simple patent families in scope, a 25.0% share, the highest single-row count in this result. The remaining listed filers each hold 2 or fewer families. These rows are not summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer, which means adding rows would double-count.
US20230325386A1, filed by Snowflake Inc and published 2023-10-12, describes receiving a query, building a compilation context from it, and performing a lookup against a stored plan cache for an exact match before deciding whether re-compilation is needed based on a data-dependent optimization. This summary comes from the abstract only. Whether this patent would affect a particular design depends on the granted claims, which this page does not reproduce, so that question has to be answered by reading the claim set directly.
This page does not show a growth rate for this dataset: the pool is small and the available years are too thin, or too recent a start, to support a reliable percentage. The filing trend by published record runs from 2009 (6 records, with 2 earlier records outside the charted window) up to 2026, but the 2022-onward years are still filling in as later-filed documents publish, so recent counts understate the eventual total. No year-to-year change in a set this size should be read as a trend.
All 8 simple patent families in this dataset carry the IPC subclass G06F, electric digital data processing, a 100.0% share of the families in scope. The search returned other subclasses as well, but none of them reaches a share worth discussing against the same 8-family base, and this page does not characterise what those smaller classes cover. One family can carry more than one subclass, which is why the chart on the page can show more subclasses than this text names.
Go past this page: query the whole database query cache key normalization for parameterized statements 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 ("query cache" OR "plan cache") AND (parameteriz* OR "key normalization"))
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 100.0% 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 26 records and 8 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 (5 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 7 of the 7 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 7 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 (16 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.
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