https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/edge-computing-node-cluster-membership-consensus-protocol-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Software & Distributed Systems

Edge Computing Node Cluster Membership Consensus Protocol Patents

117 patent families on edge/cluster-membership consensus protocols, with filer spread, IPC mix and a 2026 filing snapshot.

147
Published Records
117
Simple Patent Families
3%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
20%
In Force at Cut-off

147 published records collapse into 117 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. AJAY KUMAR GARG ENG COLLEGE is named on 4 of the 117 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 In force = 30 of 147 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 117 simple patent families sit behind 147 published records on edge-node and cluster-membership consensus protocols, with no date limit applied to the search.
  • AJAY KUMAR GARG ENG COLLEGE is named on 4 of the 117 families (3.4%), the highest single-row share among 62 listed filers.
  • 61 of 62 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, indicating a spread with no single row holding a wide share.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape draws on a search for edge computing or edge node terms combined with consensus or cluster membership language and protocol or coordination terms, applied across title, abstract and claims text. No date limit was set, so the 117 simple patent families and 147 published records returned reflect every matching filing the search string reaches, not a fixed window of years. Family counts de-duplicate one invention across the countries it was filed in; record counts do not, so the two numbers answer different questions and are kept separate throughout this page.

Legal status is known at the retrieval date only: 30 of the 147 records (20%) were granted and still in force, with the remainder spread across pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined status that this page does not break out further.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. AJAY KUMAR GARG ENG COLLEGE4
  2. CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY2
  3. STRONG FORCE IOT PORTFOLIO 2016 LLC2
  4. SREYAS INST OF ENG & TECH2
  5. APEXCOGNITA PTE LTD2
  6. VELLORE INSITUTE OF TECH2
  7. SR UNIVERSITY2
  8. NOIDA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY (NIET)2
  9. LEPTUDE INC2
  10. Beijing Zhaoke Hengxing Technology Co., Ltd.1

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 (STRONG FORCE IOT PORTFOLIO 2016 LLC, STRONG FORCE TX PORTFOLIO 2018 LLC). 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (38 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 62 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 62 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 Node Cluster Membership Consensus Protocol Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 trend and technology mix

The figures below are drawn directly from the search: a publication-year trend in records, and an IPC subclass breakdown in families.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)

Records climb from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 65 in 2025, with 37 recorded so far for 2026. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later publications arrive, most routes publish around 18 months after filing, and PCT national-phase entries can take up to 30 months, so the most recent years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a falloff.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)0204060802201720182019202020212022202320246520253720262022 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.

Technology composition (IPC subclass, share of 117 families)

H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 66.7% of families, the highest share in the set, followed by G06F (electric digital data processing) at 43.6%, G06N (AI-based computing) at 36.8% and G06Q (business/commerce data processing) at 28.2%. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to more than 100%.

Technology composition (IPC subclass, share of 117 families)H04L · Digital information transmissi…7866.7%G06F · Electric digital data processi…5143.6%G06N · Computing based on AI models4336.8%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…3328.2%H04W · Wireless communication networks1613.7%G05D · Control of non-electric variab…54.3%G16H · Healthcare informatics54.3%G05B · Control & regulating systems43.4%Other3429.1%

Shares are the percentage of the 117 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 Node Cluster Membership Consensus Protocol Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Edge Computing Node Cluster Membership Consensus Protocol Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about edge computing node cluster membership consensus protocol patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example Filing

A record from the result set

From the Search Results
WO2026112646A12026-05-28

Systems and methods for healthcare configured artificial intelligence platforms

STRONG FORCE HEALTH PORTFOLIO 2024, LLC

The abstract describes a device with multiple sensors collecting operational data from a healthcare environment, patient data, equipment status, staff location, environmental conditions and workflow data, alongside a context analysis module that determines current operational context and a sensor fusion engine that applies context-specific weighting to the collected data before generating fused operational information.This record (WO2026112646A1) is simply the first result returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citation, novelty or scope. The abstract describes the elements above; what the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, which this page does not reproduce.

WO2026112646A1, patent drawing 1WO2026112646A1, 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 Node Cluster Membership Consensus Protocol Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 filer and technology data shows

Three figures summarise how filing activity and technology classification are distributed across this dataset.

Filer concentration
3.4%
largest single-row share

Top row holds 4 of 117 families

AJAY KUMAR GARG ENG COLLEGE is named on 4 of the 117 simple patent families in scope, a 3.4% share. This is the highest share held by any single row among the 62 listed filers; it says nothing about the scope or strength of the underlying filings.

Based on family counts, 62 listed filers
Long tail
61 of 62
filers with 2 or fewer families

Most listed filers hold one or two families

61 of the 62 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Because one family can name several filers, these rows are not additive, so no combined share for any group of them can be stated from this data.

Based on family counts, 62 listed filers
Technology mix
66.7%
families carrying H04L

H04L carries the highest IPC share

H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 66.7% of the 117 families in scope, ahead of G06F at 43.6%, G06N at 36.8% and G06Q at 28.2%. A family can carry more than one of these classes, so the shares overlap and add to more than 100%.

Based on 117 simple patent families, IPC subclass level
Legal status
20%
records granted and in force

30 of 147 records are in force

At retrieval, 30 of the 147 published records (20%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records are split across pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and undetermined status, which this page does not break out further.

Based on 147 published records, status at 2026-10-20
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 node cluster membership consensus protocol 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 Node Cluster Membership Consensus Protocol Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Going deeper on this dataset

The figures on this page summarise one search string. Reading individual claim sets, tracking a specific filer, or testing an adjacent search are natural next steps.

Pull the full claim set on a record of interest

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Patsnap Eureka lets you pull the granted claims and file history directly for any record surfaced here.

Open in Patsnap Eureka

Track a specific filer's activity over time

Filer rows here are not rolled up to corporate group, so related entities appear separately. Patsnap Eureka can monitor a specific assignee name as new publications arrive.

Set up filer tracking

Test adjacent search terms

This landscape reflects one search string with no date limit. Adjusting the terms, narrower or broader, will change which families and records are in scope.

Refine this 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 Edge Computing Node Cluster Membership Consensus Protocol Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Edge Computing Node Cluster Membership Consensus Protocol Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Edge Computing Node Cluster Membership Consensus Protocol Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole edge computing node cluster membership consensus protocol 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 computing" OR "edge node" OR "edge nodes") AND (consensus OR "cluster membership") AND (protocol OR coordination))

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 (H04L) carries 66.7% 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 147 records and 117 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 (38 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 62 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 62 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 2026-10-20.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (30 of 147). 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.