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/guilloche-pattern-generation-algorithm-for-security-document-printing-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-26 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Patent Landscape SnapshotGuilloche Pattern Generation Algorithm Patents for Security Document Printing
A 21-family, 123-record search on guilloche pattern generation for security documents, led by one filer with 6 families.
123
Published Records
21
Simple Patent Families
32%
In Force at Cut-off
EP
Leading Jurisdiction
123 published records collapse into 21 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 39 of 123 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 21 simple patent families sit behind the 123 published records returned by this search.
- De La Rue International Ltd is named on 6 of the 21 families (28.6%), the largest single-row share in the listed filers.
- Six of the nine listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, the rest of the list being a short tail rather than a cluster.
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This dataset gathers records matching guilloche, fine-line pattern and related terms alongside generation or algorithm language, restricted to security document, banknote and security printing contexts. It returns 123 published records collapsing to 21 simple patent families once duplicate filings across jurisdictions are removed. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to carry; the filing-trend chart below shows a recent window only, not the full history.
With only 21 families in scope, this is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, treat the page as a starting point for a deeper search rather than a finished map.
Families vs. records in scope
Counted over all 123 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 107 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 (1 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 9 of the 9 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 9 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 Guilloche Pattern Generation Algorithm for Security Document Printing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The Numbers
Filings, classes and offices
Three views of the same 21 families and 123 records: where filings landed by year, which classification subclasses recur, and which receiving offices appear most often.
Filing activity by earliest filing year (107 of 123 published records)
Published records by earliest filing year, peaking at 26 in 2014. Years from 2022 are still filling in because of publication lag and are shaded accordingly; no growth or decline should be read from recent years.
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 (107 records); the 123 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
Share of the 21 simple patent families carrying each IPC subclass. A family can carry more than one subclass, so shares sum to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 21 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 Guilloche Pattern Generation Algorithm for Security Document Printing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Guilloche Pattern Generation Algorithm for Security Document Printing Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about guilloche pattern generation algorithm for security document printing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative Filing
A record from the result set
From the Search Results
EP2635445B1, Value and/or security document with coded information
BUNDESDRUCKEREI GMBH
The abstract describes a value and/or security document with at least one line, for example in the form of a guilloche pattern, that has a line width. The line is divided in at least a partial region so that a gap forms, and a first piece of information is coded into that gap in a way not visible to the naked eye.Shown as the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not as the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set.
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 Guilloche Pattern Generation Algorithm for Security Document Printing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. 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 →Key Figures
Reading the dataset
These cards report individual figures from the search. None of them should be read as a ranking of quality, strength or market position.
Largest filer
6 of 21 families
28.6% share
De La Rue International Ltd
De La Rue International Ltd is named on 6 of the 21 simple patent families in scope (28.6%). This is the single largest row in the listed filers; it says nothing about the scope or strength of any claim within those families.
Filer table, simple patent families
Long tail
6 of 9 filers
2 or fewer families each
Spread across the listed filers
Six of the nine listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed filers are organisations only; filings held by named individuals are excluded from this list but remain inside the total of 21 families.
Filer table, simple patent families
Legal status
39 of 123
32% in force
Records in force at retrieval
39 of the 123 published records (32%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated out here.
Legal status, published records
Classification
76.2% of 21 families
B42D subclass
B42D appears most often
B42D (books and special printed matter) appears on 16 of the 21 simple patent families (76.2%), the highest share of any subclass in this set. G07D and B41M follow at 23.8% and 19.0% respectively; a family can carry more than one subclass.
IPC composition, simple patent families
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 guilloche pattern generation algorithm for security document printing 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 Guilloche Pattern Generation Algorithm for Security Document Printing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps
Going beyond this snapshot
This page reports counts and shares from one search string. Turning that into a filing or clearance decision takes a closer read of the underlying documents.
Read the granted claims directly
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim requires. Anyone assessing freedom to operate against a specific design needs the full claim set, not the summary here.
Explore claim text in Eureka →Widen or narrow the search terms
This set was built from one search string covering guilloche, fine-line pattern and related terms. Adjusting those terms will change which records and families are captured.
Rebuild the search in 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 Guilloche Pattern Generation Algorithm for Security Document Printing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this dataset
This particular search returns 123 published records, which collapse to 21 simple patent families once duplicate filings of the same invention across different countries are merged. The search string combines guilloche and fine-line-pattern terms with generation or algorithm language, restricted to security document, banknote and security printing contexts. A different search string would likely return a different count, so this figure describes this search rather than a fixed total for the topic.
The listed filers in this dataset include De La Rue International Ltd, Bundesdruckerei GmbH, OVD Kinegram AG and several others, counted in simple patent families. De La Rue International Ltd is named on 6 of the 21 families (28.6%), the largest single row in the list. Six of the nine listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, and the list includes organisations only, filings held by named individuals are excluded from it but remain inside the total of 21.
No. One simple patent family can name more than one filer, so the rows in the filer list overlap rather than partition the total, and adding them together over-counts by an unknown amount. On this dataset the listed rows already sum to 95% of the 21 families, which is arithmetic rather than a concentration figure. With only 21 families in scope, a high combined total would not demonstrate that any entity controls the space in any case.
The chart counts published records by earliest filing year, not simple patent families, so an invention filed in several countries adds more than one mark to the line. The peak so far is 26 records in 2014. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in because of publication lag, most filings take 18 months to publish, and PCT applications entering national phase can take up to 30 months, so no decline should be read into the most recent years.
B42D (books and special printed matter) is the subclass with the highest share, appearing on 16 of the 21 simple patent families (76.2%). G07D (coin and paper-currency handling) follows at 23.8% and B41M (printing and marking processes) at 19.0%. A single family can carry more than one subclass, which is why these shares add up to more than 100% rather than partitioning the 21 families.
De La Rue International Ltd holds the largest number of families in this listed filer set, named on 6 of the 21 simple patent families (28.6%). That reflects filing volume in this specific search only; it says nothing about the scope, validity or commercial value of any of those families, and the filer list does not roll up parent and subsidiary names, so this figure attaches to this row by name only.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Guilloche Pattern Generation Algorithm for Security Document Printing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Guilloche Pattern Generation Algorithm for Security Document Printing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole guilloche pattern generation algorithm for security document printing 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:((guilloche OR "fine-line pattern" OR "fine line pattern") AND (generat* OR algorithm) AND ("security document" OR banknote OR "security printing"))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 (B42D) carries 76.2% 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 123 records and 21 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 (1 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 9 of the 9 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 9 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 2026-10-26.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (39 of 123). 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.