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/error-correcting-code-memory-bit-error-detection-and-correction-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Semiconductors & MicroelectronicsError Correcting Code Memory Bit Error Detection and Correction Patents
1,261 families and 2,887 records on ECC memory bit-error detection/correction, led by Samsung Electronics at 7.9% share.
2,887
Published Records
1,261
Simple Patent Families
8%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
US
Leading Jurisdiction
2,887 published records collapse into 1,261 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD is named on 99 of the 1,261 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.
- 1,261 simple patent families and 2,887 published records sit inside this ECC-memory search, with no date limit applied to the underlying string.
- Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 99 of the 1,261 families, the highest single-row share at 7.9%.
- 19 of the 100 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, while the top listed rows alone sum to 83% of the families in scope (rows overlap, so this is not a clean concentration figure).
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This landscape draws on a search string built around "error correcting code", ECC, or "error correction code" combined with memory and either "bit error" or "soft error", applied across titles, abstracts and claims. No date limit was set, so the result set spans whatever filing years the matching documents happen to fall in. The dataset separates two counting units throughout: simple patent families, which de-duplicate one invention across the countries it was filed in, and published records, which count every publication separately.
1,261 simple patent families and 2,887 published records matched the string as retrieved on 2026-10-27. The gap between those two totals reflects the same invention being published more than once, whether through multiple countries, continuations, or PCT national-phase entries.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 2,887 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 1,984 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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (SK HYNIX INC, SK HYNIX NAND PRODUCT SOLUTIONS CORP). 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 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 Error Correcting Code Memory Bit Error Detection and Correction 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
The Numbers
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,261 families: how filing activity by earliest filing year has moved through published records, and how the technology splits across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2007–2026 (published records) (1,984 of 2,887 published records)
Published records counted by earliest filing year ran from 83 in 2007 to a peak of 140 in 2022. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so the most recent years understate eventual totals; this counts documents, not de-duplicated inventions, so a rising line can also reflect the same invention being filed more widely.
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 (1,984 records); the 2,887 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition (IPC subclass share)
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 73.5% of the 1,261 families, G11C (static & digital memories) on 44.1%, and H03M (coding & code conversion) on 22.1%. Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add to more than 100%; the dataset holds 55 subclasses in all, and the chart shows the full spread.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,261 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 Error Correcting Code Memory Bit Error Detection and Correction 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 Error Correcting Code Memory Bit Error Detection and Correction Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about error correcting code memory bit error detection and correction patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaExample Record
A record from the result set
As retrieved
US9710324B2, DIMM with a dedicated ECC storage unit
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
The abstract describes a dual in-line memory module (DIMM) that stores a data indicator inside a storage unit dedicated to an error correcting code (ECC). The DIMM stripes a burst data word across a burst data word storage unit at a write address, and stripes the corresponding burst ECC word across a burst ECC storage unit using fewer bits than the number of data-bit cells available there, allowing at least one data indicator to be stored alongside a burst of data.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, dates or importance.
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 Error Correcting Code Memory Bit Error Detection and Correction 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
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 →Key Figures
Reading the dataset
Four figures from the result set, each reported in the unit it was counted in.
Scope
1,261 families / 2,887 records
simple patent families / published records
Two counting units, one search
The search string matched 2,887 published records, which de-duplicate to 1,261 simple patent families across countries. No date limit was applied, so this reflects every matching record regardless of filing year.
Retrieved 2026-10-27
Largest filer
99 families (7.9%)
share of 1,261 families
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, single-row share
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 99 of the 1,261 families in scope, a 7.9% share. This is the only combined-share figure the page prints for any filer; rows are not rolled up to a parent group and cannot be added to one another.
Filer list, organisations
Long tail
19 of 100 listed filers
filers with 2 or fewer families
Spread among the listed filers
Of the 100 listed filers (organisations; individual-named filings are excluded from the list where they can be identified but remain in the totals), 19 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows sum to 83% of the 1,261 families, but because one family can name several filers, that sum is not a concentration figure.
Filer table shows top 30 of 100 listed
Technology split
G06F 73.5% / G11C 44.1% / H03M 22.1%
share of 1,261 families, by IPC subclass
IPC subclass shares overlap
G06F, G11C and H03M each appear on well over a fifth of the 1,261 families, and because a family can carry more than one classification these shares add to more than 100%. The dataset records 55 subclasses in total; the chart shows the complete distribution.
IPC subclass level, families basis
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 error correcting code memory bit error detection and correction 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 Error Correcting Code Memory Bit Error Detection and Correction 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
Going deeper on ECC memory filings
The figures here describe the shape of the result set. Reading specific claims, tracking a single filer's activity, or scoping a filing decision requires going past the counts.
Read the granted claims, not the abstract
An abstract and a family count describe what a document discusses, not what its claims legally require. Pulling the granted claim set is the only way to assess what a specific filing covers.
Open a record in Eureka →Track a single filer's family, not a rolled-up group
Names here are not merged to corporate parent; a filer's filings have to be read row by row. Eureka can follow one named entity's family across jurisdictions without assuming a group relationship.
Explore filer activity in Eureka →Watch how later years fill in
Published-record counts for 2022 onward are still incomplete as later-filed applications publish. Re-checking the trend periodically gives a truer read than treating the current shape as final.
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 Error Correcting Code Memory Bit Error Detection and Correction 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 ECC memory patents
This particular search returned 2,887 published records, which de-duplicate to 1,261 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. No date limit was set on the search, so this reflects every matching document the database holds, not a fixed recent window. The two numbers differ because a single invention is commonly published more than once, through separate national filings, continuations, or PCT national-phase entry.
Within the 100 organisations returned by this search's filer list, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on the most simple patent families, 99 out of 1,261 (7.9%). That figure describes filing volume in this dataset only; it says nothing about claim scope, validity or commercial value, and the filer list is not rolled up to corporate parent, so related-looking names are counted separately and are never summed together on this page. Other organisations named frequently in the dataset include International Business Machine Corporation, Micron Technology Inc, SanDisk Technologies LLC and SK Hynix Inc, the last of which appears as two separate listed rows.
The three IPC subclasses with the largest shares of the 1,261 families are G06F (electric digital data processing, 73.5%), G11C (static and digital memories, 44.1%) and H03M (coding and code conversion, 22.1%). Because a single family can be classified under more than one subclass, these shares add to well over 100%, and that overlap is expected rather than an error. The dataset spans 55 subclasses in total, with the chart on this page showing the full spread beyond the three named here.
The filing trend, counted in published records by earliest filing year, rose from 83 records in 2007 to a peak of 140 in 2022. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, roughly 18 to 30 months depending on the filing route, so the apparent drop in the most recent years is a publication-lag artifact rather than a real decline. This series also counts documents rather than de-duplicated inventions, so movement in the line can reflect the same invention being filed more widely rather than a change in underlying invention volume.
The search returned applications across 20 receiving offices. The largest among those named in this dataset are the United States with 1,567 published records, Japan with 374, Europe (EPO) with 273, WIPO under the PCT route with 160, South Korea with 157 and China with 105. These figures are counted in published records, not simple patent families, and one invention filed in several offices contributes a record to each one, so the office figures should not be read as a family-level split.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Error Correcting Code Memory Bit Error Detection and Correction 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 Error Correcting Code Memory Bit Error Detection and Correction Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole error correcting code memory bit error detection and correction 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:(("error correcting code" OR ECC OR "error correction code") AND memory AND ("bit error" OR "soft error"))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 (G06F) carries 73.5% 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 2,887 records and 1,261 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. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-27.
Legal status. Legal status was not available for this search, so no in-force figure is shown. 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.