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/graph-convolutional-network-node-classification-architecture-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · AI & Machine LearningGraph Convolutional Network Node Classification Patents
184 patent families and 221 records on graph convolutional network node classification, with filer spread and IPC composition through 2026.
221
Published Records
184
Simple Patent Families
3%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
44%
In Force at Cut-off
221 published records collapse into 184 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIV is named on 5 of the 184 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 In force = 97 of 221 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 184 simple patent families and 221 published records sit in scope, with no single filer ahead: Hangzhou Dianzi Univ and Tianjin Univ each hold 5 families, the top count in the set.
- 85 of the 96 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, indicating a filer list with a long tail rather than a small group of repeat filers.
- G06N covers 89.1% of the 184 families and G06F covers 67.4%, a one-class-each pattern since families frequently carry both classifications at once.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This landscape reports on patent filings matching graph convolutional network (GCN) or node-embedding language combined with node classification terms, pulled from a search across publication titles, abstracts and claims. The scope is 184 simple patent families, de-duplicated across the countries where each invention was filed, drawn from 221 published records. No date limit was set on the search string, so the set runs across whatever years the matching documents happen to fall in; the filing-trend chart on this page shows a recent window only, not the full span.
Filer names are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent organisation and any subsidiary appear as separate rows. Legal status at retrieval shows 97 of the 221 records (44%) granted and still in force; the remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not available on this page.
Records, families and legal status at a glance
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 (4 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 96 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 96 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 Graph Convolutional Network Node Classification Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data
Filing activity and technology composition
Two views of the same 184 families: when matching documents were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)
The series runs from 1 record in 2018 to a peak of 46 records in 2024, before reaching 22 in 2026. Counts from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications continue to publish, so the recent downward slope reflects publication lag rather than 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.
IPC subclass composition (share of 184 families)
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 89.1% of the 184 families, G06F (electric digital data processing) on 67.4%, and G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) on 21.2%. A family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 184 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 Graph Convolutional Network Node Classification Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Graph Convolutional Network Node Classification Architecture Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about graph convolutional network node classification architecture patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaExample Filing
A record from the result set
From the search results
Processing apparatus and data processing method for generating a node embedding using a GCN model
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
The abstract describes a processing apparatus that obtains embedding information for a first node being added to a graph and its connection information to that graph, receives supernode information for a supernode of a compressed version of the graph (where the supernode groups several nodes from the original graph), and generates modified embedding information for the first node from the supernode information, the initial embedding, and the connection information, using a GCN model.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. What the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish that.
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 Graph Convolutional Network Node Classification Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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 filer and technology counts show
Three figures worth sitting with before reading the full tables.
Joint top filer count
5 families
shared top count
Two filers tie at 5 families each
Hangzhou Dianzi Univ and Tianjin Univ are each named on 5 of the 184 simple patent families (2.7% each), the highest count in the listed filers. No single row holds more than these two.
Counted in simple patent families.
Filer spread
85 of 96
filers at 2 or fewer families
Most listed filers hold very few families
Of the 96 listed filers returned by the search, 85 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This list excludes filings held by named individuals, who are still counted in the 184-family total.
Filer rows are not summed; each overlaps with others on shared families.
IPC composition
89.1% / 67.4% / 21.2%
share of 184 families
G06N, G06F and G06Q carry most of the IPC mix
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 89.1% of the 184 families, G06F (electric digital data processing) on 67.4%, and G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) on 21.2%. Families can carry several IPC subclasses, so these figures add to more than 100%.
Based on all 184 simple patent families in scope.
Legal status
97 of 221
records granted and in force
44% of records are granted and in force at retrieval
97 of the 221 published records (44%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated out here.
Legal status changes continuously and is not a measure of claim strength.
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 graph convolutional network node classification 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 Graph Convolutional Network Node Classification Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next
Where to take this next
The counts on this page describe filing volume and classification spread. Reading claim scope, checking a specific filer, or tracking a narrower term set is a different task.
Read claims, not counts
A family count or an abstract cannot tell you what a granted claim covers. Pull the claim set directly for any filing before drawing a freedom-to-operate conclusion.
Open Patsnap Eureka →Narrow or widen the search string
This set is defined by one search string with no date limit. Adjusting the terms will change which of the 184 families are in scope.
Explore search options in Patsnap Eureka →Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Graph Convolutional Network Node Classification Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Questions about this dataset
This search returns 184 simple patent families, de-duplicated across the countries where each invention was filed, drawn from 221 published records. The search string combines graph convolutional network or GCN language with node classification or node embedding terms, so it captures documents using that specific vocabulary rather than every patent that touches graph neural networks generally. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching documents fall in.
Among the 96 listed filers, Hangzhou Dianzi Univ and Tianjin Univ are tied at the top with 5 simple patent families each. Beyond that pair, 85 of the 96 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so the filer list is spread across many organisations rather than concentrated in a handful of names. Filer rows cannot be added together to produce a combined share, because one family can name more than one filer and the rows overlap.
Published records by earliest filing year run from 1 in 2018 to a peak of 46 in 2024, with 22 recorded in 2026. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as applications continue to publish, so the apparent slope in the most recent years reflects publication lag rather than fewer filings. The chart also counts published records, not de-duplicated inventions, so one invention filed in multiple countries adds multiple marks to the line.
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 89.1% of the 184 families, G06F (electric digital data processing) on 67.4%, and G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) on 21.2%. Because a single family can carry several IPC subclasses, these shares add up to more than 100% rather than partitioning the dataset. Twenty subclasses appear across the full set, though only the largest few are discussed here.
97 of the 221 published records (44%) were granted and in force at the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remaining records fall into pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable categories, but that breakdown is not separated out in this dataset. Legal status changes continuously, so any figure quoted here is a snapshot rather than a fixed measure of value.
The search returned 10 receiving offices in total. The largest counts, measured in published records, are China with 150, the United States with 42, the European Patent Office with 9, and WIPO under the PCT route with 8, followed by smaller counts for India and Austria. These figures count where each record was filed, not where any filer is based, and the full set of 10 offices is larger than the handful listed here.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Graph Convolutional Network Node Classification Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Graph Convolutional Network Node Classification Architecture Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole graph convolutional network node classification 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:(("graph convolutional network" OR GCN) AND ("node classification" OR "node embedding") AND graph)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 89.1% 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 221 records and 184 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 (4 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 96 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 96 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 2026-10-15.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (97 of 221). 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.