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 →One simple patent family matches database common subexpression elimination search terms, held by Qliktech International AB.
1 published records collapse into 1 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 1 of 1 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports the result of a single search string combining database, query plan or query optimizer, and common subexpression or subexpression elimination terms across title, abstract and claims. The search returns one simple patent family and one published record, filed by Qliktech International AB and classified under G06F. No date range was applied, so this is every record the string currently matches, not a slice of a bigger set.
With a single family in scope, this is a starting point for a search rather than a map of a field. The thinness here most likely reflects the specificity of the search terms rather than an absence of filing activity around subexpression elimination in database query optimization, a broader or differently worded query would very likely surface more.
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; 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 1 of the 1 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 1 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 come directly from the search result: a filing-trend chart counted in published records, and a technology breakdown counted in simple patent families.
The one record in scope has an earliest filing year of 2019. Years from 2022 onward are shown shaded on the chart because publication lag means recent filing years are still filling in; this dataset is too thin to read a trend from in any case.
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.
The single family in scope is classified under G06F (Electric digital data processing), accounting for 100% of the one simple patent family. Other subclasses appear on the chart but fall below the threshold for discussion in text.
Shares are the percentage of the 1 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 engine common subexpression elimination optimization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaProvided are methods and systems for improved data management, data analysis, and processing. A computing device may receive one or more global queries. Each of the global queries may be associated with one or more local components, such as individual nodes of a cloud network. The computing device may determine one or more indexlets associated with each local component. The computing device may then generate query results for the one or more global queries using a global query plan and the one or more indexlets.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, novelty or breadth. 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 →Three figures summarise everything the search returns. Each is reported as counted, with its unit and what it does not establish.
The search string returns one simple patent family and one published record, with no date limit applied. This is the entire matching set, not a filtered sample of a larger one.
Qliktech International AB is named on 1 of the 1 simple patent families returned, a 100.0% share of this single-row figure. The filer list excludes individual inventors from its rows, though their filings remain inside the total.
The one family in scope carries the IPC subclass G06F, Electric digital data processing, which covers 100.0% of the simple patent family here. A record can carry more than one class, though in this case there is only the one family to classify.
At retrieval on 2026-10-26, the single published record was granted and in force. This is a status snapshot at that date, not a measure of claim strength or commercial value, and it will change over time.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to database query engine common subexpression elimination optimization patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
A one-family result is a signal to widen or adjust the search, not a finished landscape.
An abstract cannot establish what a patent covers. Pull the full claim set for US12657216B2 directly before drawing any conclusion about scope.
Open the recordThis result set depends entirely on the exact phrasing used. Related terminology around query optimization and plan rewriting may surface a larger, more representative set of records.
Run a new search in EurekaThis specific search string returns one simple patent family and one published record, with no date limit applied. That figure reflects only what this exact combination of search terms matches, not a verified count of every patent that touches common subexpression elimination in database query engines. A broader or differently worded search would likely return a different number, so this figure should be treated as a starting point rather than a final tally.
In this result set, Qliktech International AB is named on the one simple patent family returned, which is a 100.0% share of that single family. The filer list used here excludes individual inventors from its rows, though their filings remain counted in the overall totals. A single-family result cannot support any broader statement about who else may hold related patents outside this search's exact terms.
The abstract for US12657216B2, assigned to Qliktech International AB, describes methods and systems where a computing device receives global queries, determines indexlets associated with local components such as cloud network nodes, and generates query results using a global query plan and those indexlets. This describes what the abstract says the invention does, not what its granted claims legally require. Anyone assessing whether a design falls within or outside this patent needs to read the granted claim set directly, since an abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope.
At the retrieval date of 2026-10-26, the one published record in this result set was granted and in force. That is a legal-status snapshot for that specific date, and status changes over time as renewal fees are paid or lapse. It is not a measure of the patent's strength, validity or commercial value, so it should not be read as either.
The search string combines fairly specific terms, database, query plan or query optimizer, and common subexpression or subexpression elimination, across title, abstract and claims, which narrows the result set considerably. With only one simple patent family returned, this is far more likely to reflect the specificity of the chosen terms than an actual absence of related filing activity. Widening the search terms or using classification-based searching alongside keywords would be a reasonable next step to test that.
Go past this page: query the whole database query engine common subexpression elimination optimization 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 plan" OR "query optimizer") AND ("common subexpression" OR "subexpression elimination"))
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 1 records and 1 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. 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 1 of the 1 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 1 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 (1 of 1). 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