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 →36 patent families and 97 records cover flow cytometry gating algorithms, led by Cytek Biosciences with a long tail of smaller filers.
97 published records collapse into 36 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 33 of 97 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports results for the search string TAC:(("flow cytometry" OR cytometr*) AND gating AND algorithm), which returned 97 published records collapsing to 36 simple patent families. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to carry; it is not bounded to a fixed window. The filing-trend chart below shows a recent slice only and should not be read as the full history.
At 36 families, this is a small pool. The figures here describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, treat the page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished map.
Counted over all 97 published records, including filings from before 2011; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 87 records from 2011 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 share the name MINDRAY (SHENZHEN MINDRAY BIO MEDICAL ELECTRONICS CO LTD, BEIJING SHEN MINDRAY MEDICAL ELECTRONICS TECH RES INST CO LTD). 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; 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 25 of the 25 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 25 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.
Two views of the same 36-family dataset: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Published records by earliest filing year run from 1 in 2011 to a peak of 14, reached in both 2019 and 2023, with 2 recorded in 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so the most recent years understate their eventual totals, this is a publication-lag effect, not a drop in 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. This chart covers 2011-2026 (87 records); the 97 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G01N (material analysis & testing) appears on 24 of 36 families (66.7%), the highest share in the set. G16B (bioinformatics) follows at 11 families (30.6%), then G06F (electric digital data processing) at 9 families (25.0%), G06N (AI-based computing) at 7 families (19.4%) and G06V (image/video recognition) at 6 families (16.7%). Families can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 36 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 flow cytometry data gating algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaAn automated method and system are provided for receiving an input of flow cytometry data and analyzing the data using a hierarchical arrangement of analytical elements, each of which utilizes a support vector machine to automatically classify the data into different subpopulations to recognize a pattern within the data. The pattern may be used to generate a diagnostic prediction for a patient or to identify patterns within samples collected from multiple subjects.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate what one record in this dataset actually claims, 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 →Three figures worth sitting with before treating any single number as the whole picture.
Cytek Biosciences is named on 7 of the 36 simple patent families in this dataset (19.4%). This is a count of named families, not a measure of claim scope, validity or commercial reach.
23 of the 25 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows sum to more than 36 because a family can name more than one filer, so the rows cannot be added into a combined share.
G01N (material analysis & testing) is present on 24 of 36 families (66.7%), the highest of any subclass shown. G16B (bioinformatics, 30.6%) and G06F (electric digital data processing, 25.0%) follow; families can carry several subclasses, so shares add past 100%.
At the 2026-10-27 retrieval date, 33 of the 97 published records (34%) were granted and still in force. This is a status snapshot that changes continuously; it is not a measure of the quality of any filing.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to flow cytometry data gating algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a starting point built from one search string. A closer read benefits from narrowing or widening that string and checking claim language directly.
Family and subclass counts cannot establish what any single patent covers. Reading the granted claims of records that matter to a specific design is the only way to assess scope.
Explore in EurekaA broad term like 'gating' or 'cytometr*' can pull in records from adjacent fields. Narrowing or expanding the string in Eureka can test how much of this 36-family pool holds up.
Run a refined searchThis particular search returned 97 published records, which collapse to 36 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is de-duplicated. That is not necessarily every patent in this space, it reflects one search string, TAC:(("flow cytometry" OR cytometr*) AND gating AND algorithm), with no date limit applied. A different string or added terms could return a different count, so treat 36 as the size of this particular dataset rather than a definitive total.
Cytek Biosciences is named on 7 of the 36 simple patent families in this dataset, the largest single share at 19.4%. Beyond that row, 23 of the 25 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so the rest of the list is spread thinly. These figures are family counts tied to named filers, not a measure of which company's claims are broadest or most valuable.
G01N (material analysis & testing) is the most common IPC subclass, appearing on 24 of the 36 families (66.7%). G16B (bioinformatics) follows at 11 families (30.6%), then G06F (electric digital data processing) at 9 families (25.0%), G06N (AI-based computing) at 7 families (19.4%) and G06V (image/video recognition) at 6 families (16.7%). Many families carry more than one of these subclasses at once, which is why the shares add to more than 100%.
At the retrieval date of 2026-10-27, 33 of the 97 published records (34%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records sit in other statuses, pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed, but the dataset does not break those out separately, so no further split can be reported here. Legal status changes continuously and should be re-checked against a live register before any filing decision.
This dataset does not support a growth or decline reading. The filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, from 1 in 2011 up to a peak of 14 reached in both 2019 and 2023, but records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as later applications publish, a publication-lag effect that always understates the most recent years. With only 36 families total, year-to-year movement is also too small a sample to read a trend from.
Go past this page: query the whole flow cytometry data gating algorithm 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:(("flow cytometry" OR cytometr*) AND gating AND algorithm)
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 (G01N) carries 66.7% 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 97 records and 36 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 25 of the 25 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 25 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 (33 of 97). 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