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 →16 patent families and 52 published records on multi-plane NAND program operations, led by Yangtze Memory Tech on 37.5% of families.
52 published records collapse into 16 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 17 of 52 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This dataset was built from a search for records whose title, abstract or claims mention multi-plane or multiplane operation together with program operation or page program, in the context of flash memory or NAND. It returns 52 published records, which de-duplicate across countries into 16 simple patent families. The search string sets no date limit, so this spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to carry.
With only 16 families in scope, this is a small pool. It is a starting point for a search into this specific phrasing of multi-plane program operations, not a map of the broader flash-memory field, and gaps in it are as likely to reflect the search terms as any actual absence of filing activity.
Counted over all 52 published records, including filings from before 2008; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 42 records from 2008 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. 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 6 of the 6 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 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.
Figures below are drawn directly from the search results, counted either in published records or in simple patent families as noted.
Published records by earliest filing year run from 2008 (1 record) to a peak so far of 18 records in 2009. Years from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart as still filling in: records filed recently take up to 18–30 months to publish, so the most recent years understate eventual totals and no decline should be read into them.
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 2008-2026 (42 records); the 52 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 9 of the 16 families (56.3%), and G11C (Static & digital memories) on 8 of the 16 (50.0%). A family can carry both subclasses, so the two shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 16 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 multi-plane parallel program operation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a method of programming data into a multi-level flash memory, addressing how data is written across memory levels during a program operation. It is the first record returned by the database's default ordering for this search, not a ranking by citations, breadth or date.Filed by Marvell World Trade Ltd; published 2018-04-18. Shown as a representative document from the result set, not as the most cited or most significant filing in it.


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 →Three figures worth checking before treating any single filer or class as representative of this dataset.
Yangtze Memory Tech Co Ltd is named on 6 of the 16 simple patent families in scope, a 37.5% share of this row alone. This is the only single-row share the page prints; filer rows are not summed because one family can name more than one filer.
Of the 6 listed filers, 3 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each, down to a fifth-place row at 1 family. This spread describes the listed rows only; filers held exclusively by named individuals are excluded from this list but remain inside the 16-family total.
At retrieval, 17 of the 52 published records (33%) were granted and in force. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated out here, so no single status beyond "in force" can be read from this figure.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) is carried by 9 of the 16 families (56.3%) and G11C (Static & digital memories) by 8 of the 16 (50.0%). Because a family can sit in both subclasses, these two shares add to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive buckets.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to flash memory multi-plane parallel program operation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Three ways to extend what a 16-family search on this phrasing can show.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what any patent's claims actually require. Pull the granted claim set for any record that matters to a design decision before drawing conclusions about scope.
Open Patsnap EurekaThis dataset reflects one specific phrasing of multi-plane program operation. Related claim language elsewhere in flash-memory filings would need a separate search to surface.
Run a new search in Patsnap Eureka17 of 52 records were in force at retrieval, a figure that changes as applications grant, lapse or get withdrawn. Re-checking status periodically gives a current picture rather than a one-time snapshot.
Monitor records in Patsnap EurekaA search for multi-plane or multiplane program/page-program operations in flash or NAND memory returns 52 published records, which de-duplicate into 16 simple patent families once filings of the same invention across countries are merged. The search string carries no date limit, so this count spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a fixed window. Because this reflects one specific phrasing, a differently worded search on the same underlying technology could return a different count.
The search returns 6 listed filers, counted in simple patent families, with Yangtze Memory Tech Co Ltd named on 6 of the 16 families (37.5%), the largest single-row share. Three of the six listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, down to a fifth-place row at 1 family. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate parent, individual-inventor filings are excluded from this list but remain in the 16-family total, and rows cannot be added together because one family can name several filers.
EP2347417B1, filed by Marvell World Trade Ltd and published 2018-04-18, has an abstract describing a method of programming data into a multi-level flash memory, addressing how data is written across memory levels during a program operation. It was the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citation count or significance. What its granted claims actually require, and how far they reach, needs to be read from the claim set itself rather than inferred from the abstract.
No growth rate is reported for this dataset: the available filing-trend figures run too thin and the recent years are still filling in to support a reliable percentage. Published records by earliest filing year ran from 1 in 2008 up to a peak of 18 in 2009, with years from 2022 onward shaded as incomplete because recent filings take 18 to 30 months to publish. Any apparent dip in the last few years on this chart reflects that lag rather than a real change in filing activity.
At the 2026-10-16 retrieval date, 17 of the 52 published records in this dataset (33%) were granted and in force. The remaining records fall into pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable status, and that breakdown is not separated out in the data behind this page. Legal status changes continuously, so this figure is a snapshot rather than a stable measure of how many of these filings succeeded.
The search returned 9 receiving offices in total; the largest shown are the United States with 24 published records, WIPO (PCT) with 7, Japan with 5, and Europe (EPO) and South Korea with 4 each. These counts are per published record, not per family, since one invention can be filed at more than one office. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, since the dataset carries no nationality or headquarters information.
Go past this page: query the whole flash memory multi-plane parallel program operation 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:(("multi-plane" OR "multiplane") AND ("program operation" OR "page program") AND ("flash memory" OR NAND))
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.
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 52 records and 16 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 6 of the 6 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 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 2026-10-16.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (17 of 52). 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.
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