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 →Data on 1,930 patent families for genetic algorithm chromosome encoding: filer concentration, IPC split and filing trend through 2021.
3,885 published records collapse into 1,930 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. FUJITSU LTD is named on 37 of the 1,930 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. In force = 1,027 of 3,885 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape is built from a search for genetic algorithm combined with chromosome, gene encoding or chromosome encoding across title, abstract and claims. It returns 1,930 simple patent families, de-duplicated across countries, and 3,885 published records counting each national or regional publication separately. The search string carries no date limit, so the set spans whatever years the underlying records happen to fall in.
At retrieval, 1,027 of the 3,885 records (26%) were granted and still in force; the remainder cover every other status from pending to lapsed, which is not broken out further here. The filer list returned 100 organisations, with individual inventors stripped out of that list but still counted in every total and share on this page.
Counted over all 3,885 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 2,579 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. 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 30 of the 100 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 100 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.
Three views of the same 1,930 families: who filed, what they classified under, and when the records were filed.
Records filed each year climbed from 118 in 2007 to a peak of 205 in 2021, including a 52% rise from 135 in 2018 to 205 in 2021. 2022 onward is still filling in as later-filed applications continue to publish, so those years are shaded and should not be read as 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 2007-2026 (2,579 records); the 3,885 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 56.1% of families, G06F (electric digital data processing) on 39.3%, and G06Q (business, commerce and admin data processing) on 25.5%. One family can carry several classes, so these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,930 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 genetic algorithm chromosome encoding optimization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe method determines cash availability during a given period, identifies possible activity schedules, determines the cash requirements for each, ranks schedules based on minimizing the increase in project duration, schedules the selected activities, and determines the impact on project cash flow. The algorithm is described as introducing chromosomes that maximize use of available funds and minimize project duration.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citation count, filing date or scope. It is shown to illustrate what one matching document 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 →Four figures drawn directly from the search results, each reported with the unit it was counted in.
FUJITSU LTD is named on 37 of the 1,930 simple patent families in scope, equal to 1.9% of the set. This is the single highest row in the filer list; it does not establish anything about claim scope or portfolio strength.
None of the 100 listed filers holds 2 or fewer simple patent families; every listed row carries at least a handful. Filer rows are not mutually exclusive (one family can name several filers), so these counts cannot be added into a combined share.
26% of the 3,885 published records (1,027) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remaining 74% covers every other status, pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined, none of which is broken out separately.
G06N appears on 56.1% of the 1,930 families, G06F on 39.3% and G06Q on 25.5%. Because a family can carry more than one classification, these three shares overlap and add to more than 100%.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to genetic algorithm chromosome encoding optimization patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports counts and shares. Reading what any single filing actually covers, or scanning the full filer and classification detail, takes a closer pass.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Before drawing any conclusion about what a filing blocks or leaves open, pull the granted claim set for that specific record.
Open a record in EurekaThe filer table shown here lists 30 of the 100 organisations returned by the search. A fuller view of mid-tier filers requires working through the remaining rows directly.
Explore filer data in Eureka2022 onward is still publishing. Re-running this search in future periods will show those years approaching their eventual totals.
Set up monitoring in EurekaThis search returns 1,930 simple patent families, which de-duplicate the same invention across countries, and 3,885 published records, which count each national or regional publication separately. The search string has no date limit, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to fall in. Treat the family count as the invention-level figure and the record count as the publication-level figure; they answer different questions and should not be swapped for each other.
FUJITSU LTD is named on 37 of the 1,930 simple patent families, the highest count of any row in the filer list returned by this search. That list covers 100 organisations, shown as the top 30 on this page, with individual inventors excluded from the list where they can be identified though still counted in the overall totals. A filer count by itself says nothing about the breadth or enforceability of what any single filer's patents actually claim.
None of the 100 listed filers holds 2 or fewer simple patent families, which indicates a spread rather than a small cluster of single-filing entrants. At the same time, the largest row, FUJITSU LTD, accounts for only 1.9% of the 1,930 families, so no single filer accounts for a large share of the set on its own. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined concentration figure because one family can name more than one filer.
Published records filed each year rose from 118 in 2007 to a peak of 205 in 2021, including a 52% increase from 135 records in 2018 to 205 in 2021. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in, because a filing typically takes 18 to 30 months to publish depending on the route, so those years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a decline. The series counts published records rather than distinct inventions, so a rising count can also reflect the same invention being filed in more countries.
The three largest IPC subclasses among the 1,930 families are G06N (computing based on AI models) at 56.1%, G06F (electric digital data processing) at 39.3%, and G06Q (business, commerce and admin data processing) at 25.5%. Because a single family can carry more than one classification, these shares overlap and add to more than 100% rather than partitioning the set. The search returned 100 subclasses in total; only the largest few are discussed here.
Go past this page: query the whole genetic algorithm chromosome encoding optimization 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:("genetic algorithm") AND (chromosome OR "gene encoding" OR "chromosome encoding")
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 3,885 records and 1,930 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 30 of the 100 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 100 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. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (1,027 of 3,885). 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