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/fuse-based-programmable-read-only-memory-array-architecture-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Semiconductors & MicroelectronicsFuse-Based Programmable Read-Only Memory Array Architecture Patents
68 patent families and 165 records on fuse-based PROM array architecture, with one filer holding the largest share at 7.4%.
165
Published Records
68
Simple Patent Families
15%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
165 published records collapse into 68 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 25 of 165 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 68 simple patent families and 165 published records make up this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
- MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC holds the highest single-row share at 5 of the 68 families (7.4%), while 50 of the 53 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
- G11C covers the largest share of the technology split appearing on 61.8% of the 68 families, ahead of H01L at 35.3% and G06F at 22.1%.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page reports every record matching TAC:((fuse OR "fusible link") AND PROM AND array), a search string built around fuse or fusible-link elements inside programmable read-only memory arrays. No date limit is applied, so the 68 simple patent families and 165 published records in scope span whatever filing dates the matching documents happen to carry. The technology split is led by G11C (static and digital memories) at 61.8% of families, with H01L (semiconductor devices) at 35.3% and G06F (electric digital data processing) at 22.1%.
68 families is a small pool, and absence of documents in any particular area here is far more likely to reflect what the search string caught than any gap in actual filing activity. Treat this page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a complete map of the field.
Scope at a glance
Counted over all 165 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 49 records from 2007 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 SEMICON (SEMICON ENERGY LAB CO LTD, LATTICE SEMICON 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 (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 53 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 53 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 Fuse-Based Programmable Read-Only Memory Array Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data
Filing activity and technology split
The figures below cover every record the search string returned, counted either in published records or simple patent families as noted.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (49 of 165 published records)
Records run from 5 in 2007 to a peak of 7 in 2009; the chart shades 2022 onward because those years are still filling in as more records publish. The line counts published records, not de-duplicated inventions, so a filing made in several countries adds a mark for each one.
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 2007-2026 (49 records); the 165 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition (share of 68 simple patent families)
G11C (static and digital memories) appears on 61.8% of the 68 families, H01L (semiconductor devices) on 35.3%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 22.1%. Because one family can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 68 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 Fuse-Based Programmable Read-Only Memory Array Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Fuse-Based Programmable Read-Only Memory Array Architecture Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about fuse-based programmable read-only memory array architecture patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaExample record
One record from the result set
First record returned
US7924596B2, Area efficient programmable read only memory (PROM) array
INTEL CORPORATION
A programmable ROM (PROM) architecture includes cascode NMOS transistors with a fuse bit cell that is arrayed, with sleep transistors located in each column of the array that in a standby mode shut down the entire fuse array. A fuse redundancy scheme may be used to repair a defective fuse row.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, assigned to Intel Corporation and dated 2011-04-12. It is not the most cited, newest or broadest record in the dataset, and nothing about its position in the field should be inferred from that order. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, not from this abstract.
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 Fuse-Based Programmable Read-Only Memory Array Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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 →Patterns in the data
What the numbers show
Three figures from this search are worth reading carefully before drawing any conclusion from them.
Filer concentration
5 of 68
families named to the top filer
Largest single-row share, 7.4%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC is named on 5 of the 68 simple patent families in this dataset, the highest figure among the 53 listed filers. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and cannot be summed, so this 7.4% figure belongs to this one row only.
Based on the filer table, 54 listed entities
Spread across filers
50 of 53
listed filers hold 2 or fewer families
Long tail across the listed filers
Most of the 53 listed filers appear on a small number of families each, with 51 of them holding 2 or fewer. This figure describes how spread the filing activity is across the entities the search surfaced; it is not a measure of how competitive or saturated any technology area is.
Counted in simple patent families
Technology split
61.8%
of families carry G11C
G11C appears on the largest share of families
G11C (static and digital memories) appears on 61.8% of the 68 simple patent families, H01L (semiconductor devices) on 35.3%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 22.1%. A family can carry more than one of these classes, so the three shares add to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive groups.
IPC subclass shares, 68 families in scope
Legal status
25 of 165
records granted and in force
Status recorded at retrieval date
25 of the 165 published records (15%) were granted and still in force as of the retrieval date, 2026-10-21. This is a snapshot of legal status at one point in time, not a success rate, and it changes continuously as documents proceed through prosecution or lapse.
Published records, status at 2026-10-21
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 fuse-based programmable read-only memory array architecture 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 Fuse-Based Programmable Read-Only Memory Array Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next
Go deeper in Eureka
This page is a fixed snapshot. Eureka lets you rerun the search with your own terms, pull the full claim sets, and track new filings as they publish.
Read the granted claims directly
An abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope. Pull the granted claim set for any record in this dataset before drawing a conclusion about what it covers.
Open claim sets in EurekaRefine the search string
This query is built from text and classification terms; narrowing or widening it can change which of the 68 families and 165 records surface.
Rerun this search in EurekaTrack new filings as they publish
Recent years in the filing trend are still filling in. Set up monitoring to see new records as they clear the publication lag.
Set up tracking 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 Fuse-Based Programmable Read-Only Memory Array Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this dataset
This search returns 165 published records that de-duplicate to 68 simple patent families, where a family groups one invention across whatever countries it was filed in. The search string TAC:((fuse OR "fusible link") AND PROM AND array) sets no date limit, so this count reflects every matching record the database holds rather than a fixed period. Treat 68 as the family-level figure and 165 as the record-level figure; they answer different questions and should not be swapped for each other.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC is named on 5 of the 68 simple patent families in scope, which is 7.4% and the highest single-row figure among the 53 listed filers. The list is ordered by family count alone and does not roll entries up to a corporate parent, so a company and any affiliated filer appear as separate rows. A higher family count says a filer has more records in this dataset; it says nothing about the scope, validity or value of any individual claim.
With 68 families total, 50 of the 53 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is the clearest way to describe how spread the filings are across the listed entities. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer, so a figure like "the top five hold X%" cannot be computed from what is on this page. The pool is small enough that any apparent concentration at the top is arithmetic rather than evidence of control over the space.
G11C (static and digital memories) appears on 61.8% of the 68 families, H01L (semiconductor devices) on 35.3%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 22.1%, with shares summing to more than 100% because a family can carry several classes. These three carry the bulk of the classification activity recorded for this search. Smaller subclasses also appear in the data but are not detailed here, since a broad search string can pull in matches from unrelated fields that this dataset cannot distinguish from a genuine minor branch.
The chart runs by earliest filing year and shades 2022 onward as still filling in, because publication can lag a filing by roughly 18 months for most routes and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. The peak so far is 7 records in 2009, with 5 recorded in 2007; no growth rate is computed on this page because the dataset is too thin to support one. Readers should not treat a lower count in a recent year as a decline, since those years have simply not finished publishing yet.
The dataset returned 16 receiving offices in total. The largest counts recorded, in published records, are United States with 64, Europe (EPO) with 36, China with 15, Japan with 10, United Kingdom with 9 and Austria with 5. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, and they do not sum to the full record total since only the largest offices are listed here.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Fuse-Based Programmable Read-Only Memory Array Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Fuse-Based Programmable Read-Only Memory Array Architecture Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole fuse-based programmable read-only memory array architecture 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:((fuse OR "fusible link") AND PROM AND array)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 (G11C) carries 61.8% 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 165 records and 68 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 53 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 53 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 2026-10-21.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (25 of 165). 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.