https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/electronic-program-guide-data-broadcasting-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Telecommunications

Electronic Program Guide Data Broadcasting Patents

A look at 1,774 patent families on electronic program guide data broadcasting: filer spread, IPC mix and filing trends.

4,725
Published Records
1,774
Simple Patent Families
6%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
14%
In Force at Cut-off

4,725 published records collapse into 1,774 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. LG ELECTRONICS INC is named on 101 of the 1,774 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 In force = 663 of 4,725 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 1,774 simple patent families and 4,725 published records sit behind this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • LG Electronics Inc is named on 101 of the 1,774 families (5.7%) the largest single filer row, though four other rows starting with Electronics & Telecomm Res Inst, LG, Samsung and Sony names are listed separately and are not summed with it.
  • Filings fell 45% from 2018 to 2021 in published records by earliest filing year, the most recent span treated as complete before publication lag sets in.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This landscape is built from the search string TAC:(("electronic program guide" OR EPG) AND (broadcast* OR transmission) AND television), applied across patent titles, abstracts and claims with no date restriction. It returns 1,774 simple patent families (one per invention, de-duplicated across countries) and 4,725 published records (one per publication, so the same invention filed in several countries is counted once per filing).

Records were filed across 39 receiving offices, with the United States, Europe (EPO), South Korea, Japan, WIPO (PCT) and China among the largest few by volume. At the retrieval date, 663 of the 4,725 records (14%) were granted and still in force; the remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further.

Records and families in scope
  1. LG ELECTRONICS INC101
  2. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD94
  3. SONY GROUP CORP91
  4. SHARP KK69
  5. FUNAI ELECTRIC CO LTD62
  6. PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORP55
  7. ADEIA GUIDES INC45
  8. MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC42
  9. DONGBU DAEWOO ELECTRONCIS CORP35
  10. DISH TECHNOLOGIES LLC34

Counted over all 4,725 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 1,976 records from 2007 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. 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. 4 rows in this table share the name ELECTRONICS (ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM RES INST, LG ELECTRONICS INC, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD, and others). 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. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. 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 30 of the 100 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 100 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 Electronic Program Guide Data Broadcasting Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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
Data

Filing trend and technology split

The two charts below cover different units: the trend line counts published records by earliest filing year, while the technology split counts simple patent families against an IPC subclass.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (1,976 of 4,725 published records)

The series runs from 2007, which shows 297 records and is the highest year in this window, not a the highest year shown, since 2,749 records filed earlier sit outside the chart entirely. From 2018 (53 records) to 2021 (29 records), the count fell 45%; 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings publish, so those years understate eventual volume and should not be read as a decline.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (1,976 of 4,725 published records)075150225300297200720092011201320152017201920212023202502022 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. This chart covers 2007-2026 (1,976 records); the 4,725 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2007 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.

Technology split (simple patent families by IPC subclass)

H04N (pictorial communication / video-TV) appears on 1,663 of the 1,774 families in scope, 93.7%. G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 422 families, 23.8%. Because a family can carry more than one IPC subclass, these shares add up to more than 100%, and the chart includes additional smaller subclasses not detailed in the prose.

Technology split (simple patent families by IPC subclass)H04N · Pictorial communication (video…1,66393.7%G06F · Electric digital data processi…42223.8%H04H · Broadcast communication22112.5%H04L · Digital information transmissi…995.6%H04B · Transmission (general)844.7%G11B · Information storage (magnetic/…703.9%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…613.4%H04Q · Switching & selecting382.1%Other20811.7%

Shares are the percentage of the 1,774 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 Electronic Program Guide Data Broadcasting Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Electronic Program Guide Data Broadcasting Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about electronic program guide data broadcasting patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

A record from the result set

First record returned
US6675385B12004-01-06

US6675385B1, HTML electronic program guide for an MPEG digital TV system

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC

The abstract describes an MPEG-2 digital TV headend and set-top box that downloads television program guide information, translates it into HTML web pages, and transmits those pages as a rotating data carousel inside an MPEG-2 data stream. The set-top box runs a general-purpose web browser that lets a viewer select and display a page from the carousel, backed by a local data cache.This is simply the first record the search returns under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It should not be read as typical of the field.

US6675385B1, patent drawing 1US6675385B1, patent drawing 2
View 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 Electronic Program Guide Data Broadcasting Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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 →
Insights

Reading the filer and technology figures

These cards state figures drawn directly from the dataset, each with the unit it is counted in and what it does and does not establish.

Filer concentration
101 of 1,774
largest single filer row, families

LG Electronics Inc holds the largest single-row share

LG Electronics Inc is named on 101 of the 1,774 simple patent families in scope, 5.7%. Four other listed rows begin with Electronics & Telecomm Res Inst, LG Electronics Inc, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Sony Electronics Inc; these are separate rows and are not added to this figure, since one family can name more than one filer and summing rows would over-count by an unknown amount.

Single-row share, not a combined total.
Long tail
0 of 100
listed filers holding 2 or fewer families

No listed filer sits at the bottom of the scale

Of the 100 listed filing organisations, 0 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows, taken one by one, sum to 75% of the 1,774 families in scope, though this figure cannot be read as a coverage percentage because filer rows overlap.

Counted in simple patent families.
Technology mix
93.7%
families tagged H04N

H04N appears on the largest share of families

H04N (pictorial communication / video-TV) is tagged on 1,663 of the 1,774 families, 93.7%. G06F (electric digital data processing) follows at 422 families, 23.8%. Since a family can carry several IPC subclasses, these two shares are not mutually exclusive and do not sum against each other.

Shares computed against all 1,774 families; they overlap.
Legal status
14%
records granted and in force

663 of 4,725 records remain in force

At the retrieval date, 663 of the 4,725 published records (14%) were granted and still in force. The rest are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not separate those categories, so the 14% figure describes status at one point in time rather than a success rate.

Status snapshot at 2026-10-27 retrieval.
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 electronic program guide data broadcasting 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 Electronic Program Guide Data Broadcasting Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next

Taking this further

The figures here describe the shape of the dataset. Pulling individual records or running adjacent searches can answer the narrower questions this page leaves open.

Check a specific filer's family list

The filer ranking shows volume only, counted one row at a time. Pulling a single row's full family list is the way to see what it actually covers before drawing further conclusions.

Explore filers in Eureka →

Read granted claims directly

A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Where a specific filing matters to a decision, the granted claim set is the only source that answers it.

Pull claims in Eureka →

Track the filing trend as it fills in

The 2022 onward window is still publishing. Re-running this search periodically will show those years settle toward their eventual counts.

Monitor trends 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 Electronic Program Guide Data Broadcasting Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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 Electronic Program Guide Data Broadcasting Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Electronic Program Guide Data Broadcasting Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole electronic program guide data broadcasting 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:(("electronic program guide" OR EPG) AND (broadcast* OR transmission) AND television)

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 (H04N) carries 93.7% 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 4,725 records and 1,774 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 30 of the 100 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 100 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, and the growth figure stops at 2021. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-27.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (663 of 4,725). 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.

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.