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/event-camera-asynchronous-visual-data-processing-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Artificial Intelligence & Machine LearningEvent Camera and Dynamic Vision Sensor Processing Patents
82 patent families on event camera and dynamic vision sensor processing, with filing spread across 74 listed organisations.
137
Published Records
82
Simple Patent Families
40%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction
137 published records collapse into 82 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 55 of 137 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 82 simple patent families sit behind 137 published records on event camera and dynamic vision sensor processing. That is the full scope this search string returns, with no date limit applied.
- Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 5 of the 82 families, the largest single-row share at 6.1%. 72 of the 74 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
- 40% of the 137 records, 55 in total, were granted and still in force at retrieval. The remainder span pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed status, none of which is broken out separately.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page covers 82 simple patent families (137 published records) matched by a search string looking for "event camera" or "dynamic vision sensor" combined with asynchronous processing of image, visual or pixel data. No date limit was applied, so the set spans every matching record the search returns regardless of filing year; the filing-trend chart below shows a recent window only, not the full span. Legal status, filer identity and IPC composition are read directly from the records returned, not from any curated subset.
82 families is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a further search, not as a complete map of activity on event camera and asynchronous visual processing.
Records vs. 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 (FUDAN UNIVERSITY, Fudan University Yiwu Research Institute). 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 (7 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 74 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 74 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 Event Camera Asynchronous Visual Data Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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 data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 82 families: how published records have accumulated by filing year, and which IPC subclasses recur most often across the set.
Published records by earliest filing year
Counted in published records (not de-duplicated across countries), the series runs from 2 records in 2014 to a peak of 19, reached in both 2023 and 2026. 2022 onward is still filling in: recent years are understated because many filings have not yet published, so no acceleration or slowdown should be read from the shape of the tail.
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.
IPC subclass composition
Across the 82 families in scope, G06V (image/video recognition) appears on 41.5%, H04N (pictorial communication) on 40.2%, G06T (image data processing) on 35.4% and G06N (AI-model computing) on 30.5%. A family can carry several subclasses, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 82 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 Event Camera Asynchronous Visual Data Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Event Camera Asynchronous Visual Data Processing Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about event camera asynchronous visual data processing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing
One record from the result set
From the result set
CMOS-assisted inside-out dynamic vision sensor tracking for low power mobile platforms
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD
An apparatus includes a dynamic vision sensor (DVS) configured to output an asynchronous stream of sensor event data, and a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor configured to output frames of image data. The apparatus further includes a hybrid feature handler configured to receive, as an input, one or more of a DVS output or a CMOS image sensor output, and provide tracked features to a visual-inertial simultaneous location and mapping (SLAM) pipeline performing inside-out device tracking, and a sensor scheduler configured to switch off the CMOS image sensor based on a current value of one or more CMOS control factors.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a most-cited, newest or broadest filing. It describes what the abstract states; the granted claims have to be read from the claim set itself to know what the patent actually covers.
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 Event Camera Asynchronous Visual Data Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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 numbers
What the figures show and don't
Three figures from the same 82-family, 137-record set, reported with the limits that apply to each.
Scale
82 families / 137 records
simple patent families vs. published records
Two different counts for the same pool
82 simple patent families are de-duplicated across countries; the 137 published records are not, so the same invention filed in several countries adds more than one record. Neither number is a measure of how many distinct technologies are covered beyond what the search string matched.
Counted at retrieval, 2026-10-15
Filer spread
72 of 74
listed filers holding 2 or fewer families each
Filing spread across the listed organisations
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 5 of the 82 families (6.1%), the largest single-row figure on the page. Of the 74 listed filers, 72 hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows are not mutually exclusive, one family can name several filers, so these rows cannot be summed into a combined share.
Organisations only; individual inventors are excluded from the listed rows but remain in the totals
Legal status
55 of 137
records granted and in force at retrieval
Status is a snapshot, not a success rate
40% of the 137 records (55) were granted and still in force when the data was pulled. The remaining records cover pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed status, which this page does not break down further, and the in-force figure will change as applications continue to move through examination.
Status read at retrieval date, 2026-10-15
Classification mix
41.5%
of 82 families carrying G06V
Image/video recognition is the most-carried subclass
G06V (image/video recognition) appears on 34 of the 82 families (41.5%), ahead of H04N (33 families, 40.2%), G06T (29 families, 35.4%) and G06N (25 families, 30.5%). Because a family can carry multiple subclasses, these shares add to more than 100% and do not partition the set.
Subclass shares taken against the 82-family total
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 event camera asynchronous visual data processing 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 Event Camera Asynchronous Visual Data Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Going from this page to a working view
This page is a scoped search result, not a finished analysis. These are reasonable next moves for someone deciding where to look closer.
Pull the granted claims on the records that matter
An abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope. Where a specific record looks relevant, read its granted claims and file history directly before drawing any freedom-to-operate conclusion.
Open a record in EurekaRe-run the search with adjacent terms
72 of the 74 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is as consistent with search-term gaps as with a genuinely thin field. Widening or varying the string may surface records this pass missed.
Adjust the search in EurekaTrack status changes over time
40% of the 137 records were in force at retrieval; that figure moves as pending applications are examined. A saved search lets you see those changes as they happen rather than re-pulling a static snapshot.
Set up monitoring in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Event Camera Asynchronous Visual Data Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on this dataset
This search returns 82 simple patent families and 137 published records matching "event camera" or "dynamic vision sensor" combined with asynchronous processing of image, visual or pixel data. Families count each invention once, de-duplicated across the countries it was filed in; records count each publication separately, so the same invention filed in multiple jurisdictions adds more than one record. No date limit was applied to the search, so this reflects every matching record the database holds, though the most recent filing years will under-represent true volume because of publication lag.
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 5 of the 82 families in scope, the largest single-row figure in this dataset (6.1%). Beyond that, the field is spread thin: 72 of the 74 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows cannot be added together to produce a combined share, because one family can name several filers and the rows overlap, so no statement about a group of filers' combined share can be made from this data.
A simple patent family groups together all the national and regional filings that protect the same invention, so it is counted once no matter how many countries it covers. A published record is counted every time that invention's documentation is published, including separate publications in different offices. That is why this dataset shows 82 families but 137 records: the same inventions were filed, and published, in more than one place on average.
The published-record trend runs from 2 records in 2014 to a peak of 19, reached in both 2023 and 2026, but this chart cannot be read as a reliable trend. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in, because filings take time to publish, up to roughly 30 months for applications entering national phase, so the most recent years are understated and will rise as more publications appear. No acceleration, slowdown or maturity conclusion can be drawn from the shape of the recent tail.
40% of the 137 records (55 of them) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date of 2026-10-15. This is a snapshot of legal status at one moment, not a measure of patent quality or commercial value, and it will keep changing as pending applications are examined and granted patents lapse or are renewed. The remaining 60% spans pending, withdrawn, refused and lapsed status, which this dataset does not break down further, so no statement about how many are specifically pending or lapsed can be supported.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Event Camera Asynchronous Visual Data Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Event Camera Asynchronous Visual Data Processing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole event camera asynchronous visual data processing 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:(("event camera" OR "dynamic vision sensor") AND asynchronous AND (image OR visual OR pixel))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. No subclass carries much of this set: the most common one is on 41.5% of the patent families and the set spans 30 subclasses in all. That can mean the technology genuinely sits across several areas, or that the search string is also matching adjacent work that happens to use the same words. This page cannot separate the two, and the result set is not screened by hand.
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 137 records and 82 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 (7 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 74 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 74 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 2026-10-15.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (55 of 137). 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.