https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/database-system-versioned-temporal-table-query-processing-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-16 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Database Temporal Tables

Database System-Versioned Temporal Table Query Processing Patents

A 23-family dataset on system-versioned temporal table query processing, with one filer row at 6 families and a long tail of smaller ones.

53
Published Records
23
Simple Patent Families
77%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

53 published records collapse into 23 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 41 of 53 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 23 simple patent families and 53 published records make up the full scope of this search, with no date limit applied to the query string.
  • TERADATA US INC is named on 6 of the 23 families the largest single filer row, while a related row, TERADATA CORP, is listed separately and not added to it.
  • 13 of the 14 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each showing how spread the remaining filing activity is across the listed organisations.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This search targets records whose title, abstract or claims combine a temporal table or system-versioned table term with database and either a query or versioning term. It returns 23 simple patent families (one per invention, de-duplicated across countries) and 53 published records (one per publication). No date limit was applied to the search string, so this set spans whatever filing years the matching documents happen to fall in, with no particular start year implied.

23 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this specific search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, and the page is best read as a starting point for a deeper search rather than a map of who has filed where.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. TERADATA US INC6
  2. TERADATA CORP2
  3. SAP SE2
  4. MEDAMERICA DATA SERVICES LLC2
  5. AMAZON TECH INC2
  6. KYNDRYL INC1
  7. MICROSOFT CORP1
  8. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION1
  9. LEMON INC(GB)1
  10. EON IO LTD1

Counted over all 53 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 50 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 (TERADATA US INC, TERADATA CORP). 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 (2 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 14 of the 14 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 14 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 Database System-Versioned Temporal Table Query Processing 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
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 23-family, 53-record dataset: when matching documents were filed, and which IPC subclass they sit in.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (50 of 53 published records)

The trend counts published records by earliest filing year, from 2 in 2007 to a peak of 9 in 2018, tapering toward 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so the most recent years understate eventual totals and should not be read as a decline. The series counts documents, not inventions, so a rise can also reflect the same invention being filed in more places.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (50 of 53 published records)03581022007200920112013201520179201920212023202502022 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 (50 records); the 53 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

Technology composition by IPC subclass (simple patent families)

G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 21 of the 23 families in scope, 91.3%. A family can carry more than one IPC class, so this share is read against the family total rather than against the sum of all classes shown on the chart.

Technology composition by IPC subclass (simple patent families)G06F · Electric digital data processi…2191.3%G16H · Healthcare informatics28.7%

Shares are the percentage of the 23 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 Database System-Versioned Temporal Table Query Processing 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 Database System-Versioned Temporal Table Query Processing Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about database system-versioned temporal table query processing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

A record from the result set

From the result set
US12737264B22026-09-15

US12737264B2, System and method for querying a backup of a database system based on a temporal table

EON IO, LTD.

The abstract describes generating multiple backups of a database, each made up of backup data objects stored as rows in column-oriented files, with each backup tied to a unique point in time. Rows are assigned to row groups with unique identifiers, and a temporal table holds the row group identifiers across backups. The system receives a query for a backup created at a particular point in time and processes it against this structure.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest, or broadest document in the set. What its granted claims actually require, and how far they reach, can only be read from the claim set itself, an abstract and a family count cannot establish that.

US12737264B2, patent drawing 1US12737264B2, patent drawing 2
View 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 Database System-Versioned Temporal Table Query Processing 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 →
Insights

Reading the numbers

Three figures worth holding onto before drawing any conclusion from this dataset.

Scope
23 families / 53 records
families vs. published records

Two different counts for the same search

The search returns 23 simple patent families (one per invention) and 53 published records (one per publication, counted per country/office). These are not interchangeable: a family count tells you how many inventions are in scope, a record count tells you how many documents exist across jurisdictions.

Evidence summary, record and family totals
Filer concentration
6 of 23 families
largest single filer row

TERADATA US INC's single-row share

TERADATA US INC is named on 6 of the 23 families (26.1%), the largest single row in the listed filers. A related row, TERADATA CORP, is listed separately; one family can name several filers.

Evidence summary, filer list
Long tail
13 of 14
listed filers with 2 or fewer families

Most listed filers hold very few families

13 of the 14 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed filers are organisations only; filings held by named individuals are removed from this list but remain inside the 23-family and 53-record totals.

Evidence summary, filer list
Legal status
41 of 53 records
granted and in force at retrieval

Status at the 2026-10-16 retrieval date

41 of the 53 published records (77%) were granted and still in force when the data was retrieved. The remainder are not broken out further here, and in-force status changes continuously, so this is a snapshot rather than an enforceability measure.

Evidence summary, legal status
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 database system-versioned temporal table query processing 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 Database System-Versioned Temporal Table Query Processing 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

Where to take this from here

This page surfaces counts and a filing trend; deeper claim-level questions need the underlying documents.

Pull the granted claims

Family and record counts cannot tell you what any single patent covers. Reading the granted claim set of a specific record is the only way to assess scope.

Explore in Eureka

Widen or narrow the search string

This 23-family set reflects one specific combination of terms. Adjusting the query may surface adjacent records this search missed, or exclude noise it picked up.

Run a new search in 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 Database System-Versioned Temporal Table Query Processing 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 about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Database System-Versioned Temporal Table Query Processing 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 Database System-Versioned Temporal Table Query Processing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole database system-versioned temporal table query processing 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:(("temporal table" OR "system-versioned table") AND (database) AND (query* OR version*))

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 91.3% 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 53 records and 23 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 (2 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 14 of the 14 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 14 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 (41 of 53). 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.