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 →A 19-family dataset on secure enclave isolation for edge data processing, with a long tail of single-filing entities and no single top filer.
27 published records collapse into 19 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 3 of 27 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This dataset gathers records matching a search string combining edge computing or edge devices with secure enclave or trusted execution environment terms and data processing or isolation language in the title, abstract and claims. No date limit was applied, so the 19 simple patent families and 27 published records returned reflect everything the string matched, not a chosen time window. The filing-trend chart below shows a recent slice only and should not be read as the full span of the dataset.
At 19 families, this is a small pool. The figures here describe what this specific search returned, they are a starting point for further research, not a map of the field as a whole.
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 (20 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 10 of the 10 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 10 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.
Three views of the same 19 families and 27 records: where filings were received, how filings by earliest filing year have been published so far, and which IPC subclasses recur most.
Records run from 6 in 2020 to a peak of 11 in 2025, with 9 recorded for 2026 so far. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so recent counts understate the eventual total; this should not be read as a 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.
H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 8 of the 19 families (42.1%), the highest share of any subclass, followed by G06F (electric digital data processing) at 6 of 19 (31.6%), G06N and G06Q each at 4 of 19 (21.1%), and G05B at 3 of 19 (15.8%). A family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 19 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 secure enclave based sensitive data processing isolation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a Virtual Identity instantiated within a secure enclave and bound to one or more Compliance Jurisdiction Tokens, supporting multiple concurrent identities each scoped to a declared purpose, jurisdiction, subnet or session, with communication permitted only when bound tokens validate inline.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing. It is shown to illustrate what one record in this set claims, not to represent the dataset as a whole.
View record WO2025215626A2Selected 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 →These cards report figures from the dataset as counted, they do not rank filers by strength or infer anything about the field beyond what the counts state.
Ten of the ten listed filers are each named on exactly 1 of the 19 simple patent families in scope, including the row with the single largest share, Chengdu Zhuanzhi Lihu Digital Technology Co., Ltd. at 5.3%. There is no single filer with the most families here.
All 10 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This indicates how spread the listed filers are across the 19 families; it does not mean the rows can be summed into a combined share, since one family can name more than one filer.
H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 8 of the 19 families (42.1%), the highest subclass share in this set, with G06F (electric digital data processing) next at 6 of 19 (31.6%). Subclasses overlap, so shares add to more than 100%.
3 of the 27 published records (11%) were granted and still in force at retrieval on 2026-10-20. The remainder cover a mix of statuses not broken out here, and in-force status is a snapshot rather than a measure of quality.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to edge computing secure enclave based sensitive data processing isolation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures on this page describe one search, not the full technical picture around secure enclave isolation at the edge.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent's claims actually require. Before relying on any filing here, read the granted claim set itself.
Explore in EurekaA small pool like this one is sensitive to the exact terms used. Adjusting the string may surface related filings that this particular combination of terms missed.
Run a new search in EurekaThis dataset returns 19 simple patent families and 27 published records matching a search string combining edge computing or edge device terms with secure enclave or trusted execution environment terms and data processing or isolation language. No date limit was applied to the search, so this reflects everything the string matched rather than a fixed time period. Because the pool is this small, it should be treated as a starting point for further research rather than a complete census of the technology area.
The filer list returned by this search contains 10 organisations, and 10 of the 10 are each named on only 1 or 2 of the 19 simple patent families, meaning there is no single filer with the most families. at 5.3% of the 19 families. Individual-named inventors are excluded from this organisation list but remain counted inside the 19-family and 27-record totals, so the listed rows do not account for every filing.
Published records by earliest filing year run from 6 in 2020 up to a peak of 11 in 2025, with 9 recorded so far for 2026. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in because later-filed applications take time to publish, so the most recent years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a slowdown. This series counts published records, not de-duplicated inventions, so a single invention filed in multiple jurisdictions adds more than one mark to the chart.
H04L, covering digital information transmission, appears on 8 of the 19 simple patent families (42.1%), the highest share of any subclass in this set. G06F, electric digital data processing, follows at 6 of 19 (31.6%), with G06N and G06Q each at 4 of 19 (21.1%) and G05B at 3 of 19 (15.8%). A single family can carry several IPC subclasses, so these shares add to more than 100% and should not be treated as a breakdown of the full 19.
The search returned applications across 5 receiving offices, counted in published records: WIPO under the PCT system with 11, India with 8, China with 4, the European Patent Office with 2, and the United States with 2. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, since the dataset carries no nationality information for the entities named in it.
Go past this page: query the whole edge computing secure enclave based sensitive data processing isolation 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 device*") AND ("secure enclave" OR "trusted execution environment") AND ("data processing" OR isolation))
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 27 records and 19 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 (20 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 10 of the 10 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 10 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 (3 of 27). 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