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 →391 patent families on SSD garbage collection and wear leveling: filer spread, IPC split, and filing trend through 2026.
826 published records collapse into 391 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. Filing growth = 2018 (71 records) → 2021 (70); 2021 is the last year we treat as complete. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD is named on 64 of the 391 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.
This landscape is built from a search for garbage collection and wear leveling terms alongside flash, NAND flash, solid state drive, SSD and flash translation layer language across title, abstract and claims. It returns 826 published records, which de-duplicate down to 391 simple patent families once filings across multiple countries for the same invention are collapsed into one.
No start year was set on the query, so the set spans whatever filing dates the matching text produced. The filing-trend chart on this page shows a recent window only; it is not the full scope of the search.
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 (6 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 94 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 94 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Two views of the same 391-family pool: how published records accumulate by filing year, and which IPC subclasses the families sit in.
Published records ran from 12 in 2007 to a peak of 71 in 2018, then 70 by 2021 (a -1% change across that span). Years from 2022 onward are shaded because records filed in those years are still publishing and the counts will keep rising.
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. The growth figure above therefore stops at 2021. This chart covers 2007-2026 (818 records); the 826 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 373 of the 391 families, 95.4% of the pool. G11C (static and digital memories) appears on 59 families, 15.1%. Families can carry both classes along with others, so these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 391 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about flash memory garbage collection algorithm for solid state drives patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaWrite operation and garbage collection methods are provided for a Solid State Drive (SSD) controller of a SSD having Not-AND (NAND) flash memory devices with on-die Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) and NAND flash memory. In the write operation method, a received block of data is stored in on-die SRAM of the NAND flash device, rather than in on-chip SRAM of the controller, prior to programming into NAND flash memory. Until programmed into NAND flash memory, the block of data remains available in the on-die SRAM to fulfill an 'immediate read' operation, if received. In the garbage collection method, blocks of data are read from one or more source NAND flash devices and stored in on-die SRAM.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default order, not a ranking by citations, breadth or date. It is shown to illustrate the kind of claim language this search string catches, not as representative of the field.


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.
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 →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 →These cards state figures drawn directly from the dataset, a count, a share, or a position in the filing trend, without adding a ranking judgement to them.
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 64 of the 391 simple patent families in scope, a 16.4% share. This is a count of named families, not a measure of claim scope or portfolio strength, and it says nothing about any other entity's filings.
69 of the 94 listed filers (organisations; named individuals are excluded from this list where they can be identified but remain in the totals) hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The remaining listed filers, including the fifth-place row at 18 families and the tenth-place row at 7, hold more.
Published records by earliest filing year rose to 71 in 2018 before settling to 70 by 2021, a -1% change across that span. Years 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so no further trend can be read from them.
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 373 of the 391 families, 95.4%. G11C (static and digital memories) appears on 59 families, 15.1%. Families can carry both classes, so these two figures are not mutually exclusive and do not sum to 100%.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to flash memory garbage collection algorithm for solid state drives patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures above describe what this search returned. Reading claim scope, checking a specific filer's wider activity, or tracking a narrower technical term each call for a different pass through the data.
Family counts and abstracts describe what a filing is about, not what its claims cover. Pull the granted claim set for any record before drawing a conclusion about scope.
Open Patsnap EurekaThis set is shaped entirely by the terms in the query. Swapping in more specific language, such as a particular wear-leveling technique, will return a different pool with different filers at the top.
Run a new search in Patsnap EurekaRecords filed from 2022 onward are still arriving as they clear the publication lag. Revisit the filing trend in a future period rather than treating the current shaded years as final.
Set up monitoring in Patsnap EurekaThis search returns 826 published records, which collapse to 391 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. There is no date limit on the query, so this reflects every record the search string matched regardless of filing date. The 391-family figure is the more useful one for counting distinct inventions; the 826 figure counts every publication of those inventions across jurisdictions.
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 64 of the 391 families in scope, a 16.4% share, the highest of any single listed row. The list goes on to a fifth-place row at 18 families and a tenth-place row at 7, then thins out: 69 of the 94 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. These rows cannot be added together to produce a combined share, because one family can name several filers and the rows overlap.
Published records by filing year rose to a peak of 71 in 2018 and stood at 70 by 2021, a -1% change across that span, the most recent period the dataset treats as complete. Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing, filings can take up to 30 months to appear, longer for PCT applications entering national phase, so those later years are undercounted and cannot be read as a decline. No growth or slowdown conclusion can honestly be drawn beyond the 2018–2021 comparison given here.
IPC subclass G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 373 of the 391 families, 95.4% of the pool, and G11C (static and digital memories) appears on 59 families, 15.1%. Because a single family can carry more than one classification, these two shares are not exclusive of each other and do not sum to 100%. The dataset includes 11 subclasses in total, though only the largest carry enough weight to characterise here.
No. An abstract, like the one shown for US12254201B2 on this page, summarises what an invention is about; it does not set out the legal boundaries of what the granted claims require. Determining whether a particular design falls inside or outside a patent's protection requires reading the granted claim language and prosecution history directly, not inferring from an abstract or a family count. This page does not perform that analysis for any record it shows.
Go past this page: query the whole flash memory garbage collection algorithm for solid state drives patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:((flash OR "NAND flash") AND ("garbage collection" OR "wear leveling") AND ("solid state drive" OR SSD OR "flash translation layer"))
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 95.4% 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 826 records and 391 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 (6 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 94 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 94 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. 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.
This page