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 →A 7-family dataset on GPU-accelerated graph traversal engines: filer spread, IPC mix and filing counts through 2026.
9 published records collapse into 7 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country.
This page gathers patent records matching a search string combining GPU or graphics processing unit terms with graph traversal and accelerat* or engine language across title, abstract and claims. The search returns 7 simple patent families (9 published records across receiving offices), with no date limit applied by the query itself.
This is a small pool: 7 families and 9 records in total. The figures below describe what this specific search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, and the page is best read as a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished map.
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 (5 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 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.
The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing-trend count by earliest filing year, and an IPC subclass breakdown by simple patent family.
Published records rose from 3 in 2025 to 6 in 2026. The chart's most recent years, from 2022 onward, are still filling in as later filings publish, so this should not be read as a rate of change.
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.
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 5 of the 7 families (71.4%), ahead of G06F (electric digital data processing) at 3 of 7 (42.9%), and G06Q and H04L each at 2 of 7 (28.6%). Families can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 7 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 graph computing gpu accelerated graph traversal engine patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a system and method for orchestrating AI and media processing workflows in a distributed computing environment. Processing nodes are modeled as a directed acyclic graph where nodes represent processing entities and edges represent communication paths. A central controller discovers nodes, determines their capabilities, and builds an execution pipeline using graph traversal algorithms such as Dijkstra's algorithm or A* search, assigning tasks based on network latency, computational load and resource availability.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing. Filed by Pexip AS, published 2026-10-07.


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 summarise the structure of this result set; each is reported as counted, without inferring a ranking or a trend beyond what the number itself states.
Six listed filers, Dayananda Sagar Academy of Technology & Management Bengaluru, Symbiosis Int Deemed Univ, Applied Physics Inc, RV University Bangalore, Ideal Institute of Technology and Pexip, are each named on 1 of the 7 simple patent families in scope. None of the six holds more than the others, and the rows are not summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer.
The search returns 9 published records collapsing to 7 simple patent families once filings of the same invention across jurisdictions are de-duplicated. The gap between the two counts reflects multi-office filing of the same inventions, not additional inventions.
Of the 9 published records, 5 were filed in India, 2 in the United States, 1 at the EPO and 1 via WIPO (PCT). This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
G06N (computing based on AI models) is present on 5 of the 7 families (71.4%), with G06F on 3 of 7 (42.9%) and G06Q and H04L each on 2 of 7 (28.6%). A family can carry more than one subclass, so these percentages do not sum to 100%.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to graph computing gpu accelerated graph traversal engine patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This dataset is a narrow slice built from one search string. Widening or narrowing the terms, or reading the full claim sets directly, will change what it shows.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent's claims cover. Anyone assessing freedom to operate against a specific design needs to pull the granted claim set for the records that matter.
Open Patsnap Eureka →A 7-family result from one search string is sensitive to the exact wording used. Related phrasing may surface records this search missed, particularly where terminology for graph acceleration varies across filers.
Refine the search in Patsnap Eureka →This specific search returns 7 simple patent families and 9 published records, with no date limit applied to the query. That count reflects the exact search string used, combining GPU or graphics processing unit terms with graph traversal and either accelerat* or engine, so a differently worded search could return a different number. It should be treated as one data point rather than a definitive count of everything filed in this area.
The listed filers in this dataset are Dayananda Sagar Academy of Technology & Management Bengaluru, Symbiosis Int Deemed Univ, Applied Physics Inc, RV University Bangalore, Ideal Institute of Technology and Pexip, each named on 1 of the 7 simple patent families. None of them is named on more than one family in this result set, so there is no single filer ahead of the others here. Individual inventors also appear in the underlying totals but are not included in this organisation-only list.
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 5 of the 7 families, the largest share, followed by G06F (electric digital data processing) on 3 of 7 and G06Q and H04L each on 2 of 7. Because a single family can be classified under more than one subclass, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should not be read as a breakdown of the whole set. The mix suggests these filings sit at an intersection of AI-related computing and general data processing classifications, though the small family count limits how much can be drawn from this.
Of the 9 published records in this dataset, 5 were filed in India, 2 in the United States, 1 at the European Patent Office and 1 via the WIPO PCT route. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any applicant or inventor is based, since no nationality data is available in this dataset. Readers should not infer a filer's location from the office where a given record was filed.
The dataset shows published records rising from 3 in 2025 to 6 in 2026, but this is too short and too thin a window to describe as a growth trend. Recent years in any patent filing chart are understated because of publication lag, applications can take 18 to 30 months to appear in public databases after filing. No growth rate is calculated or implied here; the two data points are reported as counted.
Go past this page: query the whole graph computing gpu accelerated graph traversal engine 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:((GPU OR "graphics processing unit") AND ("graph traversal") AND (accelerat* OR engine))
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 (G06N) carries 71.4% 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 9 records and 7 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 (5 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 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. 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.
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