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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/dna-sequence-data-compression-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Genomics & BioinformaticsDNA Sequence Data Compression Algorithm Patents
53 patent families and 156 records cover DNA sequence compression algorithms, led by Koninklijke Philips at 15.1% of families.
156
Published Records
53
Simple Patent Families
31%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
156 published records collapse into 53 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 49 of 156 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 53 simple patent families and 156 published records sit behind this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
- Koninklijke Philips NV holds the largest single share, named on 8 of the 53 families (15.1%).
- 37 of the 40 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, a spread with no second-tier cluster of repeat filers.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This set groups 156 published records into 53 simple patent families matching the search string "DNA sequence" OR genomic AND compression AND algorithm across title, abstract and claims. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to carry. The filing-trend chart below shows a recent window only, and its most recent years are still filling in as records continue to publish.
With 53 families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat the figures on this page as a starting point for a targeted search rather than a map of the field; a handful of documents moving up or down year to year is not a trend, and an absence of filings in any particular branch more likely reflects the search terms than an empty branch of technology.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 156 published records, including filings from before 2008; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 132 records from 2008 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 (14 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 40 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 40 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 DNA Sequence Data Compression Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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
The numbers
Filing activity and technology split
Figures below are drawn directly from the search result set: 156 published records resolving to 53 simple patent families, with technology shares measured against the family total.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (132 of 156 published records)
The trend counts published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated families, so a single invention filed in several countries adds more than one mark. The peak so far is 2021 at 34 records; 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings publish, so recent years should be read as incomplete rather than declining.
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 2008-2026 (132 records); the 156 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass composition (share of 53 families)
G16B (Bioinformatics) appears on 45.3% of the 53 families and G06F (Electric digital data processing) on 41.5%, the two largest branches in this set. H03M (Coding & code conversion) sits at 18.9% and H04L (Digital information transmission) at 15.1%. Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 53 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 DNA Sequence Data Compression Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on DNA Sequence Data Compression Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about dna sequence data compression algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing
A record from the result set
From the result set
Data compression system for DNA sequence
SHENZHEN UNIVERSITY
The present invention discloses a data compression system for DNA sequence, which is a lossless compression system for DNA sequence data, based on the MA-ARV codebook, which is able to search the approximate repeat fragment of the MA-ARV code vector in the whole sequence, and use a heuristic optimization algorithm of memetic algorithm to optimize the construction process of the compressed codebook, so as to fully use the repeat nature of DNA sequence data, and eliminate the redundancy effectively.This is the first record returned under the database default order, not a ranking by citations, breadth or date. It is shown to illustrate what one filing in this set claims, not as a representative or landmark example.
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 DNA Sequence Data Compression Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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
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 →Reading the data
What the figures show
Three figures worth sitting with before treating any ranking here as settled.
Legal status
31%
of 156 records in force
Granted and in force at retrieval
49 of the 156 published records (31%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated out here. This is a legal-status snapshot at one point in time, not a measure of quality or success.
Retrieved 2026-10-27
Largest filer
15.1%
of 53 families
Koninklijke Philips NV named on 8 of 53 families
Koninklijke Philips NV is named on 8 of the 53 simple patent families in scope, the largest single-row share in the filer list. This figure describes filing volume in this dataset only; it says nothing about claim scope, validity or commercial standing, and filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group.
40 listed filers, top 30 shown in the table
Spread of filers
37 of 40
listed filers hold 2 or fewer families
Most listed filers hold one or two families
37 of the 40 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filer rows overlap because one family can name more than one filer, so these counts cannot be summed into a coverage or concentration percentage; each share applies only to its own row.
Organisations; individual-named filers excluded from this list where they can be identified
Classification mix
45.3%
of 53 families carry G16B
G16B and G06F cover the largest shares
G16B (Bioinformatics) is attached to 45.3% of the 53 families and G06F (Electric digital data processing) to 41.5%. A family can carry both classes and others besides, which is why the full set of subclass shares adds to more than 100% of the family total.
22 subclasses returned in total
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 dna sequence data compression algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for DNA Sequence Data Compression Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Where to take this from here
These figures describe what one search returned. Narrowing the question or pulling the underlying claim sets is the next step for any of the following.
Pull the granted claims on the largest filer
Koninklijke Philips NV's 8 families are a filing-volume count, not a claim map. Reading the granted claims directly is the only way to know what they actually require.
Open in Eureka →Re-run with tighter terms
A 53-family pool this size is sensitive to search-string choices. Narrowing or widening the query in Eureka can show whether the classification mix here holds up.
Refine the search →Track legal status over time
31% of records were in force at retrieval, a figure that moves as applications grant, lapse or get refused. Re-checking status periodically keeps this current.
Monitor this set →Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for DNA Sequence Data Compression Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on this dataset
This search returns 156 published records resolving to 53 simple patent families, where a family groups the same invention across countries into one count. No date limit was applied to the query, so this reflects whatever years the matching records happen to span rather than a chosen window. Because it relies on one search string, it should be read as one view into the topic rather than an exhaustive count of every filing that touches DNA sequence compression.
Koninklijke Philips NV is named on 8 of the 53 simple patent families in scope, the largest single-row share in the filer list, which works out to 15.1%. 37 of the 40 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so beyond that single row the filing activity is spread thinly rather than clustered. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and any subsidiaries would appear as separate entries rather than combined.
Its abstract describes a lossless compression system for DNA sequence data built on an MA-ARV codebook, which searches for approximate repeat fragments across the full sequence and uses a memetic-algorithm heuristic to optimise how the compressed codebook is built. It was filed by Shenzhen University and published on 2013-10-24. An abstract summarises the invention but does not state what the granted claims require; that has to be read from the claim set itself, not inferred from this summary or from any family count.
This page does not show a growth rate for this topic: the filing-trend chart is not corrected for publication lag, and recent years are understated because many filings from 2022 onward have not yet published. The peak year in the published window so far is 2021 at 34 records, but that count is measured in published records, not de-duplicated families, so a single invention filed in multiple countries adds more than one mark. Reading a slowdown out of the most recent two or three years would be reading noise rather than signal.
G16B (Bioinformatics) and G06F (Electric digital data processing) carry the largest shares, attached to 45.3% and 41.5% of the 53 families respectively. H03M (Coding & code conversion) appears on 18.9% and H04L (Digital information transmission) on 15.1%. A single family can carry more than one of these classes at once, which is why the shares add to more than 100% rather than summing to a clean total.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for DNA Sequence Data Compression Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research DNA Sequence Data Compression Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole dna sequence data compression algorithm patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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:(("DNA sequence" OR genomic) AND compression AND 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.
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 156 records and 53 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 (14 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 40 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 40 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 2026-10-27.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (49 of 156). 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.