https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/heterogeneous-computing-mixed-instruction-set-co-processor-command-queue-dispatch-patent-l-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · High-Performance & Advanced Computing

Heterogeneous Computing Coprocessor Command Queue Dispatch Patents

A 12-family dataset on heterogeneous coprocessor command-queue dispatch, with filer spread, IPC mix and receiving offices mapped for a first look.

20
Published Records
12
Simple Patent Families
20%
In Force at Cut-off
WO
Leading Jurisdiction

20 published records collapse into 12 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 4 of 20 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 12 simple patent families and 20 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search.
  • QUALCOMM INC holds the largest single share named on 2 of the 12 families (16.7%), with the remaining 7 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families each.
  • G06F appears on 10 of the 12 families (83.3%), ahead of H04L at 3 of 12 (25.0%).
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This dataset was built from a search for heterogeneous computing systems combined with coprocessor elements and command queue, instruction queue or dispatch language in the title, abstract or claims. It returns 20 published records that reduce to 12 simple patent families once duplicate country filings are removed. The search carries no date limit, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a defined window chosen in advance.

With only 12 families in scope, this is a small pool. It is a starting point for a targeted search rather than a map of the field, and absence of documents in any area here is as likely to reflect the search terms as it is to reflect an absence of filings.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. QUALCOMM INC2
  2. BILLI AUSTRALIA PTY LTD1
  3. ORACLE INT CORP1
  4. CONVEY COMP1
  5. INTEL CORP1
  6. APUSONE TECH1
  7. NEC CORP1
  8. MOSYS INC1

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 (3 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 8 of the 8 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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 Heterogeneous Computing Mixed Instruction Set Co-Processor Command Queue Dispatch 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 pattern and technology mix

The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing-trend chart counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.

Filing trend by earliest filing year

Published records run from 2007, the peak year so far at 5 records, through to 2026 at 4. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so that stretch of the chart understates its eventual count and should not be read as a drop in filing activity.

Filing trend by earliest filing year013455200720092011201320152017201920212023202542022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after 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

G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 10 of the 12 families (83.3%), and H04L (Digital information transmission) on 3 of 12 (25.0%). Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive.

IPC subclass compositionG06F · Electric digital data processi…1083.3%H04L · Digital information transmissi…325.0%B01F · Mixing & stirring18.3%B67D · Dispensing liquids18.3%F17C · Pressure vessels & gas storage18.3%G01F · Flow, level & volume measuring18.3%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…18.3%

Shares are the percentage of the 12 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 Heterogeneous Computing Mixed Instruction Set Co-Processor Command Queue Dispatch 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 Heterogeneous Computing Mixed Instruction Set Co-Processor Command Queue Dispatch Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about heterogeneous computing mixed instruction set co-processor command queue dispatch patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

A record from the result set

As returned by the search
US20170102892A12017-04-13

Performance of coprocessor assisted memset() through heterogeneous computing

ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

The abstract describes coprocessor-assisted memory filling in a pipeline: a computer receives a request to fill multiple ranges of memory addresses with a value, distributes a first subset of those ranges to multiple coprocessors, and while that subset is being filled, selects and distributes a second subset for the coprocessors to work on, overlapping the two operations.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate what one record in scope looks like, not as representative of the other 11 families.

US20170102892A1, patent drawing 1US20170102892A1, patent drawing 2
View full record

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 Heterogeneous Computing Mixed Instruction Set Co-Processor Command Queue Dispatch 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
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 →
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 →
Insights

Reading the numbers

Three figures from the dataset, reported as counted, with their denominators and what they do not establish.

Largest filer
16.7%
of 12 simple patent families

QUALCOMM INC named on 2 of 12 families

QUALCOMM INC is named on 2 of the 12 simple patent families in scope, the highest single-row count among the 8 listed filers. The remaining 7 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and are not additive, so this figure describes one row only.

Source: filer list, simple patent families
Technology mix
83.3%
of 12 families carry G06F

G06F appears on 10 of 12 families

G06F (Electric digital data processing) is classified on 10 of the 12 simple patent families, and H04L (Digital information transmission) on 3 of 12. Because a family can carry multiple IPC subclasses, these two shares overlap on some families and do not partition the dataset.

Source: IPC classification, simple patent families
Filing spread
8 of 8
listed filers hold ≤2 families each

No listed filer exceeds 2 families

All 8 of the 8 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each, including the top-ranked row. This describes how volume is spread across the listed organisations; it says nothing about the families held by named individuals, which are counted in the totals but removed from this filer list.

Source: filer list, simple patent families
Legal status
20%
of 20 records in force

4 of 20 records granted and in force

At retrieval, 4 of the 20 published records (20%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records fall into pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or indeterminate status, which are not broken out separately in this dataset.

Source: legal status at retrieval, published records
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 heterogeneous computing mixed instruction set co-processor command queue dispatch patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Heterogeneous Computing Mixed Instruction Set Co-Processor Command Queue Dispatch 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

Taking this further

This page reports what one search string returned. Narrowing or widening that string, or reading individual claim sets, is the next step for any of these threads.

Pull the granted claims

An abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope. Where a specific record matters to a filing or design decision, the granted claim set has to be read directly.

Explore in Patsnap Eureka

Refine the search string

This set was built from one combination of heterogeneous, coprocessor and dispatch-related terms. Adjacent terminology may surface records this exact string missed.

Explore in Patsnap Eureka

Check filer names individually

Filer rows here are not rolled up to corporate group, so related entities appear as separate rows. Each needs to be checked on its own rather than summed with others.

Explore 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 Heterogeneous Computing Mixed Instruction Set Co-Processor Command Queue Dispatch 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

Questions people ask about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Heterogeneous Computing Mixed Instruction Set Co-Processor Command Queue Dispatch 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 Heterogeneous Computing Mixed Instruction Set Co-Processor Command Queue Dispatch Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole heterogeneous computing mixed instruction set co-processor command queue dispatch patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
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:((heterogeneous OR "heterogeneous computing") AND coprocessor* AND ("command queue" OR "instruction queue" OR dispatch*))

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 (G06F) carries 83.3% 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 20 records and 12 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 (3 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 8 of the 8 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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 (4 of 20). 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.