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/electrohydrodynamic-atomization-process-simulation-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Mechanical Engineering & MachineryElectrohydrodynamic Atomization Process Simulation Patents
13 patent families and 21 records on electrohydrodynamic atomization and electrospray process simulation, led by a single filer with two families.
21
Published Records
13
Simple Patent Families
33%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction
21 published records collapse into 13 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 7 of 21 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 13 simple patent families and 21 published records make up the full set returned for electrohydrodynamic atomization and electrospray process or jet simulation, with no date limit applied to the search.
- NAT UNIV OF DEFENSE TECH holds the largest single share named on 2 of the 13 families (15.4%), with the remaining 16 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families each.
- 33% of the 21 records were granted and in force at the point of retrieval, with the rest in other statuses that are not broken out here.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This landscape covers the search string TAC:(("electrohydrodynamic atomization" OR electrospray) AND (process OR jet) AND simulation), matched against titles, abstracts and claims. It returns 13 simple patent families and 21 published records, with no start or end date applied to the query, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in.
13 families is a small pool by any measure. The figures below describe exactly what this search returned, who filed, what classifications appear, and what is granted, and should be read as a starting point for a more targeted search in Patsnap Eureka rather than a map of the field.
Records and families in scope
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 (BAYER PHARMA AG, BAYER AG). 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; 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 16 of the 16 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 16 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 Electrohydrodynamic Atomization Process Simulation 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
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 composition
Two views of the same 13 families: how the published records are spread across filing years, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)
The series runs from 2016, the first year shown, at 7 records, down to 0 by 2026. One record was filed before 2016 and sits outside this chart. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the recent end of the line understates what will eventually be on file; 2016 should be read only as the highest year in this window, not a the highest year shown for the topic.
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 2016-2026 (20 records); the 21 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2016 is the highest year shown, but it is also the first year in the window: earlier filings sit outside this chart, so this is not necessarily the historical peak.
IPC subclass composition (share of 13 simple patent families)
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 4 of the 13 families, 30.8%, the largest share in the set. A61K (medicinal preparations) follows at 3 families, 23.1%, with A61P, C07D, C07K, G01N and G16B each on 2 families, 15.4%. Families can carry more than one of these classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
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 Electrohydrodynamic Atomization Process Simulation 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 Electrohydrodynamic Atomization Process Simulation Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about electrohydrodynamic atomization process simulation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRecord in Focus
A record from the result set
From the result set
US7047171B1, Method for the characterization of the three-dimensional structure of proteins employing mass spectrometric analysis and computational feedback modeling
H-NU OPS, INC.
A method for characterizing the three-dimensional surface structure of molecules, particularly proteins and protein complexes, employing mass spectrometric analysis, an electrospray ionization (ES) source, a novel data interpretation process that compares binding constants and heats of formation, and computational feedback modeling.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, grant breadth or relevance. It is shown to illustrate what one matching document actually claims.
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 Electrohydrodynamic Atomization Process Simulation 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
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 from the search, reported without added interpretation.
Scale
13 families / 21 records
simple patent families / published records
Small matching pool
The search returns 13 simple patent families and 21 published records with no date restriction applied. The gap between the two counts reflects the same inventions being published more than once, across offices or stages, not 21 separate inventions.
Counted at retrieval, 2026-10-21
Largest filer
2 of 13 families (15.4%)
share of simple patent families
Top single-row share
NAT UNIV OF DEFENSE TECH is named on 2 of the 13 families in scope, the highest count of any single listed row. Filer rows are not mutually exclusive, one family can name more than one filer, so this figure describes that one row only, not a share of the field.
16 entities listed, organisations only
Long tail
16 of 16 listed filers ≤2 families
families per listed filer
Spread across listed filers
Every one of the 16 listed filers holds 2 or fewer simple patent families. Individual filings by named inventors are excluded from this list but remain inside the family and record totals above.
Organisations only; inventors excluded from the list
Legal status
7 of 21 records (33%)
granted and in force
Status at retrieval
7 of the 21 published records were granted and in force at the point of retrieval. The remaining records sit in other statuses, pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, that are not broken out individually here.
Status as of 2026-10-21
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 electrohydrodynamic atomization process simulation 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 Electrohydrodynamic Atomization Process Simulation 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
Taking this further
This page is a starting view built from one search string. The following steps go further than a static landscape page can.
Run the search with broader or narrower terms
A 13-family pool this size is sensitive to the exact wording of the query. Widening or narrowing the search terms in Patsnap Eureka can surface records this string misses or filters out noise it picked up.
Open Eureka to refine the search →Pull granted claims before drawing scope conclusions
Family and record counts say nothing about what any single filing actually covers. Reading the granted claim set directly is the only way to establish scope for any record that matters to a specific project.
Review claim sets in Eureka →Track new publications as they land
Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish. Monitoring this query going forward will catch records that are not yet visible in this snapshot.
Set up monitoring 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 Electrohydrodynamic Atomization Process Simulation 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
Questions about this dataset
The search for electrohydrodynamic atomization and electrospray process or jet simulation returns 13 simple patent families, which correspond to 21 published records once every country and stage of each application is counted. No date limit was applied, so this set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in. Because the pool is this small, a different choice of search terms could change these counts, so treat this as a starting point rather than a definitive count for the topic.
Among the 16 listed organisational filers, NAT UNIV OF DEFENSE TECH is named on 2 of the 13 simple patent families, 15.4%, the highest count of any single row. Every other listed filer holds 2 or fewer families each, so no single entity accounts for a large portion of the set. These rows are not mutually exclusive, a family can name more than one filer, so the rows cannot be summed into a combined share, and named individual inventors are excluded from the list even though their filings remain in the total counts.
The IPC classifications attached to these 13 families cover G06F, electric digital data processing, on 4 families (30.8%), and A61K, medicinal preparations, on 3 families (23.1%), with A61P, C07D, C07K, G01N and G16B each appearing on 2 families (15.4%). Because a single family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be read as a partition of the dataset. The spread across digital processing, chemical and bioinformatics classes reflects how broadly the search terms 'electrospray' and 'simulation' can match across unrelated technical fields.
7 of the 21 published records, 33%, were granted and in force at the point of retrieval on 2026-10-21. The remaining records sit across other statuses, pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or simply not determinable from available data, which are not broken out individually in this dataset. Legal status changes continuously, so this figure is a snapshot rather than a stable measure, and it says nothing about the scope or value of any individual filing.
The filing trend as counted here starts at 2016 with 7 published records and declines toward 0 by 2026, but this does not show a genuine decline. Records from 2022 onward are still publishing, since most filings take roughly 18 months to appear and PCT applications can take up to 30 months to enter national phase, so the most recent years are understated by construction. The chart also counts published records rather than distinct inventions, so a rise or fall in the line can reflect the same invention being filed in more or fewer jurisdictions rather than any change in the number of inventions themselves.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Electrohydrodynamic Atomization Process Simulation 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 Electrohydrodynamic Atomization Process Simulation Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole electrohydrodynamic atomization process simulation 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:(("electrohydrodynamic atomization" OR electrospray) AND (process OR jet) AND simulation)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 21 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. 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 16 of the 16 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 16 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. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (7 of 21). 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.