https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/flash-memory-garbage-collection-algorithm-for-solid-state-drives-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · High-Performance & Advanced Computing

Flash Memory Garbage Collection and Wear Leveling Patents for Solid State Drives

391 patent families on SSD garbage collection and wear leveling: filer spread, IPC split, and filing trend through 2026.

826
Published Records
391
Simple Patent Families
16%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
-1%
Filing Growth 2018→2021

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.

  • 391 simple patent families and 826 published records sit inside this search, with no date limit applied to the query string.
  • Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 64 of the 391 families, a 16.4% share of the pool, the highest of any single listed row.
  • 69 of the 94 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, while filing in this set peaked in 2018 at 71 published records.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

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.

Records vs. families in this dataset
  1. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD64
  2. SEAGATE TECH LLC35
  3. SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES LLC23
  4. SK HYNIX INC19
  5. MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC18
  6. WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC18
  7. CLOUD INTELLIGENCE ASSETS HOLDING (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD13
  8. SOLID STATE STORAGE TECH CORP8
  9. KIOXIA CORP7
  10. INTEL CORP7

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.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Flash Memory Garbage Collection Algorithm for Solid State Drives 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 split

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 by filing year

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.

Published records by filing year0204060801220072009201120132015201771201920212023202552022 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. 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.

IPC subclass coverage

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%.

IPC subclass coverageG06F · Electric digital data processi…37395.4%G11C · Static & digital memories5915.1%H03M · Coding & code conversion51.3%G06N · Computing based on AI models41.0%H04L · Digital information transmissi…20.5%G01R · Electric & magnetic measurement10.3%G11B · Information storage (magnetic/…10.3%H01L · Semiconductor devices10.3%Other30.8%

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%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Flash Memory Garbage Collection Algorithm for Solid State Drives 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 Flash Memory Garbage Collection Algorithm for Solid State Drives Patent Landscape with Eureka

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 Eureka
Representative filing

A record from this result set

From the result set
US12254201B22025-03-18

Method for using NAND flash memory SRAM in solid state drive controller

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

Write 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.

US12254201B2, patent drawing 1US12254201B2, 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 Flash Memory Garbage Collection Algorithm for Solid State Drives 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 →
Patterns in the data

What the filer and technology figures show

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.

Largest single filer
16.4%
share of 391 families

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd named on 64 families

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.

Source: filer list, family count
Filer concentration
69 of 94
listed filers with ≤2 families

Most listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

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.

Source: filer list, family counts
Peak filing year
71
published records, 2018

2018 is the peak year so far in published records

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.

Source: filing-trend series, published records
Technology split
95.4%
of 391 families carry G06F

G06F covers the large majority of the pool

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%.

Source: IPC subclass breakdown, family counts
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 flash memory garbage collection algorithm for solid state drives 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 Flash Memory Garbage Collection Algorithm for Solid State Drives 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

Where to take this from here

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.

Read granted claims directly

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 Eureka

Narrow or widen the search string

This 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 Eureka

Track filings as they publish

Records 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 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 Flash Memory Garbage Collection Algorithm for Solid State Drives 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
Questions practitioners ask

FAQ

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Flash Memory Garbage Collection Algorithm for Solid State Drives 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 Flash Memory Garbage Collection Algorithm for Solid State Drives Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

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.

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:((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.