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-correction-code-integration-for-static-memory-arrays-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Semiconductors & MicroelectronicsError Correction Code Integration for Static Memory Array Patents
Analysis of 101 patent families and 297 records on ECC-integrated SRAM arrays, led by Micron Technology with an 8.9% family share.
297
Published Records
101
Simple Patent Families
9%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
35%
In Force at Cut-off
297 published records collapse into 101 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC is named on 9 of the 101 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 In force = 105 of 297 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 101 simple patent families and 297 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search string.
- Micron Technology Inc holds the largest single share named on 9 of the 101 families (8.9%), ahead of a field where 49 of the 57 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
- G11C and G06F cover most of the field at 61.4% and 54.5% of the 101 families respectively, with many families carrying both classes at once.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This landscape draws on a search for "error correction code" or ECC combined with SRAM and array terms across patent titles, abstracts and claims. It returns 101 simple patent families and 297 published records, with no start-year or end-year limit applied to the underlying search string. The dataset spans a range of applicants from large semiconductor memory makers to smaller entities with one or two filings each.
Of the 297 published records, 105 (35%) were granted and still in force at retrieval. The remainder sit in other legal states that are not broken out individually in this dataset, so no further split is available.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 297 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 194 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 (INTEL CORP, INTEL NDTM US LLC). 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 (11 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 30 of the 57 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 57 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 Integration for Static Memory Arrays 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 split
The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing trend counted in published records, and a technology breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (194 of 297 published records)
Published records by earliest filing year run from 3 in 2007 up to a peak of 19 in 2019, before falling off toward 6 in 2026. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications continue to publish, so the recent downward slope reflects publication lag rather than a drop in filing activity.
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 (194 records); the 297 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G11C (static & digital memories) appears on 61.4% of the 101 families and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 54.5%. Because a family can carry multiple IPC classes, these two shares overlap and add up to more than 100% between them; the chart also shows a wider set of 22 subclasses in total, most carrying much smaller shares.
Shares are the percentage of the 101 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 Integration for Static Memory Arrays 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 Integration for Static Memory Arrays Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about error correction code integration for static memory arrays patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRecord in focus
A record from the result set
First record returned, database default order
Redundant storage of ECC checkbits for validating proper SRAM operation
STMICROELECTRONICS INTERNATIONAL N.V.
US20190146868A1 describes storing application data together with ECC checkbits in a first memory, while storing the same checkbits, but not the data, in a second memory. On a read request, the checkbits from the first memory are used to detect and possibly correct errors in the application data, and the checkbits from both memories are compared bit-by-bit. A mismatch in that comparison generates a signal indicating a possible malfunction in one or both memories.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; neither this abstract nor any family count in this dataset can establish that.
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 Integration for Static Memory Arrays 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 →Patterns in the data
What the numbers show
Three observations follow directly from the filer list, the technology split and the receiving-office breakdown.
Largest filer
8.9%
share of 101 families
Micron Technology Inc named on 9 of 101 families
Micron Technology Inc is named on 9 of the 101 simple patent families in scope, an 8.9% share. This is a count of named families only; it does not indicate claim scope, validity or commercial weight.
Single-row figure, not summed with any other filer.
Filer spread
49 of 57
listed filers
Most listed filers hold 2 or fewer families
Of the 57 listed filers, 49 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The remaining listed filers, including the two highest-volume names, account for the balance of the filer list, which itself is capped at the top 30 shown on the page.
Listed organisations; individual-inventor filings are excluded from this list where they can be identified but remain in the totals.
Technology split
61.4% / 54.5%
share of 101 families
G11C and G06F cover the largest IPC shares
G11C (static & digital memories) appears on 61.4% of the 101 families and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 54.5%. Because one family can carry both classes, these shares overlap and cannot be added together.
Based on IPC subclass tagging across 22 subclasses in total.
Filing origin
180 records
United States receiving office
United States carries the most published records among the offices shown
Among the 13 receiving offices returned, the United States carries 180 published records, followed by Europe (EPO) at 45 and WIPO (PCT) at 21. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
Receiving-office counts sum to the record total of 297, not to the family total of 101.
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 integration for static memory arrays 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 Correction Code Integration for Static Memory Arrays 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
Next steps
Working with this landscape
The figures here set out scope and distribution. Reading individual claim sets or tracking specific filers in more depth calls for a closer look at the underlying documents.
Pull granted claims before drawing FTO conclusions
Family counts and abstracts describe scope and filing patterns, not what a granted claim actually requires. Any freedom-to-operate question needs the claim set itself.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaTrack filers beyond the top rows
With 49 of 57 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families, most of the activity in this field sits outside the highest-volume names. Monitoring newer or smaller filers can surface filings before they accumulate volume.
Set up filer tracking in Patsnap EurekaSource: 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 Integration for Static Memory Arrays 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
This dataset contains 101 simple patent families and 297 published records matching a search for ECC or error correction code combined with SRAM and array terms. A family represents one invention, while records count each publication separately, including multiple countries for the same invention. No date limit was applied to the search, so this reflects the full span of matching records retrieved, not a fixed recent window.
Micron Technology Inc is named on 9 of the 101 simple patent families in scope, an 8.9% share, the largest single-row figure in the filer list. The list also shows two rows starting with Intel and three starting with STMicroelectronics, which are kept separate and not summed together since one family can name multiple filers. Most of the 57 listed filers, 49 of them, hold 2 or fewer families each, so filing activity is spread across a long tail of entities rather than concentrated in just the top rows.
IPC subclass G11C, covering static and digital memories, appears on 61.4% of the 101 families, and G06F, covering electric digital data processing, appears on 54.5%. These shares overlap because a single family can be tagged with both classes, so they cannot be added together to reach a combined total. The dataset includes 22 subclasses in all, with the remainder each carrying smaller shares not detailed here.
The published-record count by earliest filing year peaked at 19 in 2019, after starting at 3 in 2007 and later records showing a decline toward 6 by 2026. That apparent decline in the most recent years is expected: records from 2022 onward are still publishing, since filings typically take 18 to 30 months to appear after filing. No growth rate is reported here because the dataset is not large enough across complete years to support a reliable percentage figure.
Across 13 receiving offices captured in this dataset, the United States carries the most published records at 180, followed by Europe (EPO) at 45 and WIPO (PCT) filings at 21, with China, South Korea and India each in single or low double digits. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is headquartered or based, since no nationality data is available in this dataset. The office counts sum to the 297 record total, not to the 101 family total, since a single invention can be filed at more than one office.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Error Correction Code Integration for Static Memory Arrays 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 Integration for Static Memory Arrays Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole error correction code integration for static memory arrays 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 correction code" OR ECC) AND ("static random access memory" OR SRAM) AND array)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 (G11C) carries 61.4% 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 297 records and 101 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 (11 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 30 of the 57 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 57 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. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (105 of 297). 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.