https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/error-correction-code-circuit-for-memory-bit-error-correction-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Semiconductors & Microelectronics

Error Correction Code Circuit Patents for Memory Bit Error Correction

A 1,206-family dataset on memory error-correction code circuits, covering filer concentration, IPC split and filing activity through 2026.

2,750
Published Records
1,206
Simple Patent Families
9%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
US
Leading Jurisdiction

2,750 published records collapse into 1,206 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD is named on 105 of the 1,206 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.

  • 1,206 simple patent families and 2,750 published records sit in scope for error correction code circuits used in memory bit error correction. With no date limit applied by the search string.
  • SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD is named on 105 of the 1,206 families the highest share of any single listed row, at 8.7%.
  • 27 of the 100 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each showing a long tail beneath the entities with larger counts.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape draws on a search for records combining error correction code or ECC with memory and terms like bit error, single error correction or multi-bit error. The search string carries no date limit, so the 1,206 simple patent families and 2,750 published records in scope span whatever filing years the matching records happen to fall in, not a chosen window. Family counts de-duplicate an invention across the countries it was filed in; record counts do not, so the two totals measure different things and should not be swapped for each other.

The filer table, technology split and filing trend below each use a stated unit and denominator. Read the figures against the unit named in each section rather than assuming they interchange.

Scope at a glance
  1. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD105
  2. MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC90
  3. SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES LLC71
  4. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION71
  5. NEC CORP66
  6. FUJITSU LTD56
  7. INTEL CORP53
  8. KK TOSHIBA31
  9. HITACHI LTD28
  10. SK HYNIX INC25

Counted over all 2,750 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 1,939 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 Correction Code Circuit for Memory Bit Error 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
Data

Filing activity and technology composition

Two views of the same 1,206-family dataset: when records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing trend, 2007–2026 (1,939 of 2,750 published records)

Counted in published records by earliest filing year. The series runs from 81 records in 2007 to a peak of 162 in 2022, then falls to 19 by 2026; records filed from 2022 onward are still arriving as they publish, so that stretch understates eventual totals and should not be read as a decline.

Filing trend, 2007–2026 (1,939 of 2,750 published records)050100150200812007200920112013201520172019202116220232025192022 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 (1,939 records); the 2,750 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition

G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 74.5% of the 1,206 families, G11C (static & digital memories) on 44.1%, and H03M (coding & code conversion) on 22.7%. Because one family can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should be read individually, not summed.

IPC subclass compositionG06F · Electric digital data processi…89874.5%G11C · Static & digital memories53244.1%H03M · Coding & code conversion27422.7%H04L · Digital information transmissi…574.7%G11B · Information storage (magnetic/…272.2%G06N · Computing based on AI models171.4%H01L · Semiconductor devices141.2%G01R · Electric & magnetic measurement131.1%Other12410.3%

Shares are the percentage of the 1,206 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 Correction Code Circuit for Memory Bit Error 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 Correction Code Circuit for Memory Bit Error Correction Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about error correction code circuit for memory bit error correction patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Patent in focus

A record from this result set

Example record
US12425051B22025-09-23

Error correction code decoder using constacyclic code, and memory device and memory system including the same

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

The abstract describes an ECC decoder with a syndrome generator and a burst error corrector. The syndrome generator produces global and local syndrome data from input data and a parity check matrix based on a constacyclic code; the burst error corrector uses that syndrome data to correct a correctable error. The input data is arranged along two directions, and the decoder is described as simultaneously correcting a single burst error (occurring on two or more symbols along one direction) and a multi-bit error.This is the first record returned by the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citation count, filing date or scope. It illustrates one way ECC decoding for memory is claimed in this dataset; it is not representative of the other 1,205 families.

US12425051B2, patent drawing 1US12425051B2, patent drawing 2
View full 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 Error Correction Code Circuit for Memory Bit Error 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
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 data

Three figures worth sitting with before drawing conclusions from the tables below.

Filer concentration
8.7%
largest single-row share

One row's share of 1,206 families

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD is named on 105 of the 1,206 simple patent families in scope, the highest share held by any single listed row at 8.7%. The next entries fall off quickly: fifth place holds 66 families and tenth place holds 25. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and one family can name several filers, so rows cannot be added together to produce a combined share.

Counted in simple patent families.
Long tail
27 of 100
listed filers with 2 or fewer families

Spread beneath the largest rows

27 of the 100 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The list itself returns at most 100 organisation-only entries out of whatever the full filer set contains, and named individuals are excluded from the list where they can be identified even though their filings remain inside the 1,206-family total.

Counted in simple patent families; organisations.
Technology split
74.5% / 44.1% / 22.7%
share of families by IPC subclass

Three subclasses across the 1,206 families

G06F (electric digital data processing) is carried by 74.5% of the 1,206 families, G11C (static & digital memories) by 44.1%, and H03M (coding & code conversion) by 22.7%. A family can carry more than one of these classes at once, so the three shares overlap rather than partition the dataset, and they sum to more than 100%.

Counted in simple patent families; one family may carry multiple IPC classes.
Filing window
162 records
peak year (2022), published records

Where the filing trend peaks and thins

The filing trend, counted in published records by earliest filing year, runs from 81 records in 2007 to a peak of 162 in 2022, then down to 19 by 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing and are understated on the chart; this is a publication-lag effect, not evidence of fewer filings.

Counted in published records, not families.
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 correction code circuit for memory bit error correction 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 Error Correction Code Circuit for Memory Bit Error 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

Taking this further

The figures here describe what the search returned. Narrower claim-level questions need a different kind of lookup.

Check a specific filer's exposure

Filer rows in this dataset are not summed to corporate groups, and the list shows only the largest 100 organisation-only entries. A targeted lookup on one entity name, including related-looking rows, can clarify what a single row's family count does and does not cover.

Explore filer data in Eureka

Read claims, not counts

Neither a family count nor an abstract establishes what a granted claim requires. Pulling the claim set for a specific record, such as US12425051B2, is the only way to assess its actual scope.

Open claim analysis in Eureka

Track the technology split over time

The IPC shares reported here are static totals across all 1,206 families. Watching how G06F, G11C and H03M shares shift year over year would need a separate time-sliced query.

Build a custom trend 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 Correction Code Circuit for Memory Bit Error 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 about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Error Correction Code Circuit for Memory Bit Error 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 Correction Code Circuit for Memory Bit Error Correction Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole error correction code circuit for memory bit error correction 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:(("error correction code" OR ECC) AND memory AND ("bit error" OR "single error correction" OR "multi-bit 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 74.5% 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 2,750 records and 1,206 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.

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.