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 →117 patent families on edge/cluster-membership consensus protocols, with filer spread, IPC mix and a 2026 filing snapshot.
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 In force = 30 of 147 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
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date only: 30 of the 147 records (20%) were granted and still in force, with the remainder spread across pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined status that this page does not break out further.
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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
The figures below are drawn directly from the search: a publication-year trend in records, and an IPC subclass breakdown in families.
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.
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.
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%.
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%.
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 EurekaThe 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.


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 summarise how filing activity and technology classification are distributed across this dataset.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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 EurekaFiler 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 trackingThis 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 EurekaThis search returns 117 simple patent families and 147 published records with no date limit applied, so the figures reflect every matching filing the search string reaches rather than a fixed window of years. Families de-duplicate one invention across the countries it was filed in, while records count each publication separately, which is why the two totals differ. The search string combines edge computing/edge node terms with consensus or cluster-membership language and protocol or coordination terms across title, abstract and claims, so results depend on how literally a filing uses that vocabulary.
Among 62 listed filers, AJAY KUMAR GARG ENG COLLEGE is named on 4 of the 117 simple patent families in scope, a 3.4% share, the highest held by any single row. 61 of the 62 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so filing activity is spread across many entities rather than concentrated in a small number of rows. Because one family can name multiple filers, these rows cannot be summed into a combined share, and the listed filers are organisations only; filings held by named individuals sit in the totals but not in this list.
H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 66.7% of the 117 families in scope, the highest share of any IPC subclass tracked here, 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%. A single family can carry several of these classes at once, which is why the shares add up to more than 100% rather than partitioning the dataset. These four subclasses are the ones with a share large enough to discuss in this dataset; a further 27 smaller subclasses also appear in the full IPC breakdown shown on the page.
30 of the 147 published records (20%) were granted and confirmed in force at the retrieval date of 2026-10-20. The remaining 80% spans pending applications, withdrawn or refused filings, lapsed grants and records whose status could not be determined, and this page does not break that remainder down further. In-force status is a snapshot that changes continuously as applications are prosecuted, granted, renewed or allowed to lapse, so it should be read as a point-in-time figure rather than a measure of how strong or commercially active any filing is.
The filing trend, counted in published records by earliest filing year, rises from 2 records in 2017 to a peak of 65 in 2025, with 37 already recorded for 2026. However, records from 2022 onward are still filling in: most filings publish around 18 months after filing, and PCT applications entering national phase can take up to 30 months, so the most recent years understate their eventual totals. This page does not report a growth rate, and the apparent shape of the last few years should not be read as either an increase or a decline until those years have had time to fully publish.
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.
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.
This page