https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/edge-computing-edge-cloud-collaborative-model-training-synchronization-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Edge-Cloud Training Synchronization

Edge Computing Edge-Cloud Collaborative Model Training Synchronization Patents

13 patent families on edge-cloud model training synchronization, with filer spread, IPC mix and filing counts through 2026.

13
Published Records
13
Simple Patent Families
IN
Leading Jurisdiction
11
Filers Listed (max 100)

13 published records collapse into 13 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country.

  • 13 simple patent families and 13 published records match this search string, with no date limit applied.
  • No single filer stands apart 11 filers are tied at the top with 1 family each, including Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation and Symbiosis Int Deemed Univ.
  • G06N covers the largest share 53.8% of the 13 families, ahead of H04L at 46.2% and G06F and G06Q at 30.8% each.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This search pulls records matching "edge-cloud" or "edge cloud" combined with "collaborative training" or "model training" and a synchronization term, across title, abstract and claims. It returns 13 simple patent families and 13 published records with no date restriction, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching documents happen to carry. The filing-trend chart shown on this page displays a recent window only and should not be read as the full span of the dataset.

This is a small pool: 13 families and 13 records in total. The figures below are a starting point for a targeted search, not a map of an entire field, and they should not be read as a measure of how active or settled this area is.

Records by filing year (recent window)
  1. KONERU LAKSHMAIAH EDUCATION FOUNDATION1
  2. SYMBIOSIS INT DEEMED UNIV1
  3. Sitenghe Hezuo (Tianjin) Technology Co., Ltd.1
  4. SAVEETHA ENG COLLEGE1
  5. LAKSHMI NARAIN COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY EXCELLENCE1
  6. PRAGATI ENGINEERING COLLEGE1
  7. MEENAKSHI ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION & RES1
  8. PERENNITY INC1
  9. NOIDA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY (NIET)1
  10. DAYANANDA SAGAR ACAD OF TECH & MANAGEMENT1

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 11 of the 11 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 11 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 Edge Computing Edge-Cloud Collaborative Model Training Synchronization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data

Filing records and technology composition

Counts below are drawn directly from the search result: published records for the filing trend and receiving offices, simple patent families for the filer and IPC breakdowns.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)

2025 shows 7 published records and 2026 shows 6 so far. 2022 onward is still filling in as later-filed records continue to publish, so recent counts understate the eventual total; this should not be read as a rise or fall.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)0246872025620262022 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.

IPC subclass composition (share of 13 simple patent families)

G06N carries the largest share of the 13 families at 53.8%, followed by H04L at 46.2%, and G06F and G06Q each at 30.8%. G06V appears on 23.1% of families. A single family can carry more than one IPC class, so these shares add up to more than 100%.

IPC subclass composition (share of 13 simple patent families)G06N · Computing based on AI models753.8%H04L · Digital information transmissi…646.2%G06F · Electric digital data processi…430.8%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…430.8%G06V · Image/video recognition323.1%A01G · Horticulture & forestry17.7%A24F · Smokers' requisites17.7%C12Q · Measuring & testing involving …17.7%Other13100.0%

Shares are the percentage of the 13 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 Edge Computing Edge-Cloud Collaborative Model Training Synchronization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Edge Computing Edge-Cloud Collaborative Model Training Synchronization Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about edge computing edge-cloud collaborative model training synchronization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Representative record

A record from the result set

First record returned
US20260219735A12026-07-30

Unified System for Gesture Recognition, Text Generation, and Multi-Modal Communication

PERENNITY INC.

The abstract describes an integrated platform for gesture recognition, text generation and multi-modal communication, combining edge computing with AI-driven models for real-time interaction. It centres on a Three-Stage Gesture Generative Multi-Modal Transformer using bidirectional loss computation and validation loss-driven augmentation to improve gesture sequence fluency and accuracy.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest document in the set. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, not from this abstract.

US20260219735A1, patent drawing 1US20260219735A1, patent drawing 2
View full 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 Edge Computing Edge-Cloud Collaborative Model Training Synchronization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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 →
Patterns in the data

What the counts show

Three figures from this result set, reported without ranking or interpretation beyond what the numbers state directly.

Filer spread
11 of 11 listed filers ≤ 2 families
families per listed filer

Every listed filer holds 2 or fewer families

The filer list returns 11 organisations, each named on simple patent families; every one of them holds 2 or fewer. Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation is named on 1 of the 13 families in scope (7.7%), which is the single-row figure the page shows. Rows cannot be added together because one family can name more than one filer.

Counted in simple patent families
Technology mix
G06N on 53.8% of families
share of 13 families

G06N carries the largest share of the IPC mix

G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 7 of the 13 families (53.8%), the largest share among the subclasses shown. H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 6 families (46.2%). Because a family can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and do not partition the set.

Counted in simple patent families; shares overlap
Receiving offices
India: 10 records
published records by office

Three receiving offices appear in this result set

The search returned 3 receiving offices in total: India with 10 published records, China with 2, and the United States with 1. These counts describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, and they sum to the 13-record total because each record is counted once per office.

Counted in published records
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 edge computing edge-cloud collaborative model training synchronization 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 Edge Computing Edge-Cloud Collaborative Model Training Synchronization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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 classifications from one search string. Narrowing or widening that string, and reading the granted claims directly, are the next steps for any decision that depends on scope.

Pull the full claim sets

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Anyone assessing freedom-to-operate or overlap needs to read the claims of the specific records identified here.

Open Patsnap Eureka

Re-run with adjacent terms

A 13-family result from one search string is sensitive to wording. Variants on "synchronization", "federated" or "parameter aggregation" may surface records this string does not.

Explore related searches in Patsnap 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 Edge Computing Edge-Cloud Collaborative Model Training Synchronization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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 Edge Computing Edge-Cloud Collaborative Model Training Synchronization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Edge Computing Edge-Cloud Collaborative Model Training Synchronization Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole edge computing edge-cloud collaborative model training synchronization 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:(("edge-cloud" OR "edge cloud") AND ("collaborative training" OR "model training") AND synchroniz*)

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 13 records and 13 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 11 of the 11 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 11 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 2026-10-21.

Legal status. Legal status was not available for this search, so no in-force figure is shown. 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.