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 →Dataset of 143 patent families on distributed hydrogen sensor arrays, led by a single filer with 16 families and a long tail of 84 small filers.
445 published records collapse into 143 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP is named on 16 of the 143 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 In force = 131 of 445 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape is built from a search for hydrogen, sensor array and concentration appearing together in the title, abstract or claims of a patent record. It returns 143 simple patent families across 445 published records, with no date limit applied to the search itself. Legal status at retrieval shows 131 of the 445 records (29%) granted and still in force, with the remainder pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable.
The search string is broad enough to catch sensor-array work described for purposes well outside hydrogen fuel systems, including absorbent-article and biological-assay applications, so the technology composition below should be read as what this specific wording returns rather than as a map of hydrogen-sensing engineering alone.
Counted over all 445 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 332 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (13 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 87 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 87 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 views below use different denominators: the filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, while the technology composition counts simple patent families against the 143 in scope.
Records run from 2007 at 17 to 2026 at 19, with a peak so far of 41 records in 2012. Records with an earliest filing year from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so that stretch of the chart understates its eventual count and should not be read as a recent decline.
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 (332 records); the 445 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G01N, covering material analysis and testing, appears on 69 of the 143 families in scope (48.3%), the highest share of any subclass returned by this search. The chart shows the fuller set of subclasses the search matched; shares sum to more than 100% because a single family can carry more than one classification.
Shares are the percentage of the 143 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 distributed sensor array hydrogen concentration mapping patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaAn absorbent article incorporating a non-contact electronic sensor array that may indicate the presence of a body exudate is disclosed. In particular, the absorbent article includes at least a non-contact electronic sensor array that may include one or more gas sensors, a controller and a signaling device. The signaling device is capable of alerting a user (wearer or caregiver) that an insult of urine or bowel movement has occurred. In accordance with the present disclosure, various attachment mechanisms are disclosed for attaching the non-contact electronic sensor array, controller and signaling device to an absorbent article.Shown as the first record the search returns under the database default order, not as the most cited, newest or broadest filing in scope.


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 are worth reading on their own terms, each counted in the unit stated.
LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP is named on 16 of the 143 simple patent families returned by this search (11.2%). This is a count of families naming that entity; it says nothing about the scope of the claims in those families or how they compare in value to any other row.
Of the 87 listed filers (organisations only; individual filers are excluded from this list but remain in the totals), 84 hold two or fewer simple patent families each. That leaves a small number of rows carrying more than two families, with the single largest at 16.
G01N, material analysis and testing, is classified on 69 of the 143 families in scope (48.3%), the highest share among the subclasses this search returned. Because a family can carry more than one IPC classification, this share is not exclusive of the other classes present in the data.
131 of the 445 published records (29%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date of 2026-10-15. The remaining 71% spans pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable statuses that are not broken out individually in this dataset.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to distributed sensor array hydrogen concentration mapping patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures above describe the shape of this search result. Reading any single family's claims, or tracking a specific filer's filings over time, requires going deeper than counts and shares.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent covers. Pull the full claim set for any record before drawing conclusions about scope.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaFiler rows here are not rolled up to corporate group, so a full picture of any one organisation's filings needs to be built filer by filer, not assumed from one row.
Search filers in Patsnap EurekaThe most recent filing years in this dataset are still publishing. Rechecking the trend periodically will fill in a more complete recent picture.
Monitor this topic in Patsnap EurekaA search for hydrogen, sensor array and concentration appearing together returns 143 simple patent families, representing 445 published records once all countries and re-publications are counted. These are two different counts for the same underlying set: the family figure de-duplicates one invention across the countries it was filed in, while the record figure counts each publication separately. No date limit was applied to the search, so this spans every matching record the database holds, not a fixed recent window.
LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP is named on 16 of the 143 simple patent families in scope, the largest share among the 87 listed filers at 11.2%. Behind that single row, 84 of the 87 listed filers hold two or fewer families each, so the field is spread across a long tail of small filers rather than concentrated in a handful of large portfolios. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and its subsidiaries, if both present, would appear as separate rows and should not be added together.
G01N, covering material analysis and testing, is classified on 69 of the 143 families in scope, 48.3%, the highest share of any subclass this search returned. Because a single family can carry several IPC classifications at once, subclass shares across the dataset sum to more than 100% and should not be read as a partition of the field. The search returned 99 subclasses in total, of which the chart on this page shows the fuller set.
The filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, running from 2007 through 2026, with a peak so far of 41 records in 2012. Records with an earliest filing year from 2022 onward are still publishing, since most filings take roughly 18 months to publish and some national-phase entries take up to 30 months, so that stretch of the chart will keep filling in and should not be read as a recent decline. The chart also counts documents, not inventions, so a rise can reflect the same invention being filed in more countries rather than more distinct inventions.
Not entirely. The search string matches hydrogen, sensor array and concentration wherever they appear together, which also catches records describing absorbent-article exudate sensing and biological assay work, as the example record US8933292B2 shows. Readers using this dataset to scope hydrogen fuel-cell sensing specifically should expect some records in scope to sit outside that application area, and should check individual records rather than assume uniform relevance across all 143 families.
Go past this page: query the whole distributed sensor array hydrogen concentration mapping 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:(hydrogen AND "sensor array" AND concentration)
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. No subclass carries much of this set: the most common one is on 48.3% of the patent families and the set spans 99 subclasses in all. That can mean the technology genuinely sits across several areas, or that the search string is also matching adjacent work that happens to use the same words. This page cannot separate the two, and the result set is not screened by hand.
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 445 records and 143 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 (13 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 87 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 87 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 2026-10-15.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (131 of 445). 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