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 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 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 In force = 4 of 20 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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 EurekaThe 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.


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 from the dataset, reported as counted, with their denominators and what they do not establish.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 EurekaThis 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 EurekaFiler 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 EurekaA search combining heterogeneous computing, coprocessor and command-queue or dispatch terminology returns 20 published records, which reduce to 12 simple patent families once duplicate country filings are merged into single inventions. The search carries no date limit, so this reflects whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a fixed window. Because the pool is only 12 families, it should be treated as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a complete count of everything filed in this space.
QUALCOMM INC is named on 2 of the 12 simple patent families in scope, the highest count among the 8 listed filers, which is a 16.7% share of the 12 families. Seven other listed filers each hold 2 or fewer families, so no single row accounts for a large portion of the set. Filer names are not rolled up to corporate groups, so parent and subsidiary entities would appear as separate rows and their counts are never added together on this page.
US20170102892A1, assigned to Oracle International Corporation, describes a technique for coprocessor-assisted memory filling (memset) in a pipeline, where a computer distributes subsets of memory address ranges to multiple coprocessors and overlaps the filling of successive subsets. That description comes from the published abstract only. An abstract and a family count cannot establish what the granted claims actually require or how far they reach, so any assessment of what the patent blocks has to start from the claim set itself.
This page does not report a growth rate for this dataset: the pool is small and the most recent filing years are still filling in as later filings publish, which makes short-term trend reading unreliable. Published records in the filing trend run from 2007 (the peak year so far, with 5 records) through to 2026. Records from 2022 onward are understated because of normal publication lag, typically 18 to 30 months depending on filing route, so a flat or lower count in those years should not be read as a decline.
The dataset's receiving-office breakdown, counted in published records, shows filings through WIPO under the PCT system (9 records), the United States (7), India (2) and New Zealand (2). These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based or incorporated; no nationality or country-of-origin data is available for any filer in this dataset. The offices sum to more than the 12-family total because a single invention can be filed in more than one office.
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.
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.
This page