https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/hydropower-plant-optimal-unit-commitment-scheduling-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Hydropower Scheduling Algorithms

Hydropower unit commitment scheduling algorithm patents

54 simple patent families cover hydropower unit commitment and generation scheduling algorithms, with filings concentrated in G06Q and H02J classes.

61
Published Records
54
Simple Patent Families
57%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction

61 published records collapse into 54 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 35 of 61 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 54 simple patent families and 61 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search.
  • DALIAN UNIV OF TECH holds the largest single filer row named on 11 of the 54 families (20.4%), while 48 of the 54 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • China was the receiving office for 53 of 61 records with the United States, Australia and WIPO (PCT) accounting for the remaining 8.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape draws on a search for records combining hydropower or hydroelectric generation with unit commitment or generation scheduling terms alongside optimization or algorithm language in the title, abstract and claims. It returns 61 published records, consolidated into 54 simple patent families. No date range was set, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in; the filing-trend chart below shows a recent window only, not the full scope.

At 54 families, this is a small pool. It is a starting point for a targeted search rather than a map of a field, a reader who needs a definitive view of the technology should treat the counts here as a lead-in, not a conclusion.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. DALIAN UNIV OF TECH11
  2. HUAZHONG UNIV OF SCI & TECH9
  3. STATE GRID CORPORATION OF CHINA5
  4. HUANENG LANCANG RIVER HYDROPOWER CO LTD4
  5. HOHAI UNIV3
  6. YUNNAN POWER GRID CO LTD3
  7. XI AN JIAOTONG UNIV2
  8. HUANENG GROUP TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CENTER CO LTD2
  9. NARI TECH CO LTD2
  10. NORTHWEST BRANCH OF STATE GRID POWER GRID CO2

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. 6 rows in this table share the name GRID (STATE GRID CORPORATION OF CHINA, STATE GRID HUBEI ELECTRIC POWER CO LTD, STATE GRID SICHUAN ECONOMIC RES INST, and others). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified; 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 54 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 54 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 Hydropower Plant Optimal Unit Commitment Scheduling Algorithm 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

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
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 54-family dataset: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they sit in.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

Recorded filings run from 4 published records in 2012 to a peak of 8 in 2024, with 2022 onward still filling in as later filings continue to publish. Because the series counts published records rather than families, the same invention filed in more than one jurisdiction adds more than one mark to the line; recent years should not be read as a decline.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)02468420122014201620182020202282024120262022 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 coverage (share of 54 simple patent families)

G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) appears on 44 of the 54 families (81.5%), and H02J (power supply & grid systems) on 23 (42.6%). G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 10 families (18.5%). A family can carry more than one of these classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

IPC subclass coverage (share of 54 simple patent families)G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…4481.5%H02J · Power supply & grid systems2342.6%G06F · Electric digital data processi…1018.5%G06N · Computing based on AI models814.8%G05B · Control & regulating systems35.6%F03B · Hydraulic machines & engines11.9%G06G · Analogue computers11.9%H02S · Photovoltaic / solar power gen…11.9%

Shares are the percentage of the 54 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 Hydropower Plant Optimal Unit Commitment Scheduling Algorithm 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 Hydropower Plant Optimal Unit Commitment Scheduling Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about hydropower plant optimal unit commitment scheduling algorithm 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, default order
US10825113B22020-11-03

Method for short-term generation scheduling of cascade hydropower plants coupling cluster analysis and decision tree

DALIAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

The abstract describes a method for short-term generation scheduling of cascade hydropower plants that couples cluster analysis with a decision tree. Linear regression is used to determine a matching relationship between upstream and downstream hydropower plant energy production, and typical generation curves clustered from historical data are trained together with scheduling factors such as planned daily electricity, reservoir level and power grid characteristics to build a decision-making library for generation scheduling.US10825113B2, assigned to Dalian University of Technology, published 2020-11-03. This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, novelty or breadth.

US10825113B2, patent drawing 1US10825113B2, 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 Hydropower Plant Optimal Unit Commitment Scheduling Algorithm 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 worth sitting with before treating this dataset as a map of anything.

Filer concentration
11 of 54 families
largest single filer row

DALIAN UNIV OF TECH's share

DALIAN UNIV OF TECH is named on 11 of the 54 simple patent families in scope (20.4%). This is the only single-row share the dataset supports; filer rows overlap where a family names more than one entity, so rows cannot be summed into a combined share.

Largest single filer row, by family count
Long tail
48 of 54
filers with 2 or fewer families

Spread across the listed filers

48 of the 54 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The remaining families are spread across the handful of rows above that threshold, including several that share a leading name but are listed, and counted, separately.

Based on the organisations-only filer list
Technology mix
81.5% / 42.6%
G06Q / H02J family share

Two IPC subclasses cover most families

G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) appears on 44 of 54 families and H02J (power supply & grid systems) on 23 of 54. A single family can carry both classes, and others, so these shares add to more than 100% of the 54 families.

Share of 54 simple patent families, not mutually exclusive
Legal status
35 of 61
records granted and in force

Status at retrieval

35 of the 61 published records (57%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-21 retrieval date. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further.

Legal status at retrieval, not a success rate
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 hydropower plant optimal unit commitment scheduling algorithm 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 Hydropower Plant Optimal Unit Commitment Scheduling Algorithm 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

Go further with Patsnap Eureka

This page reports counts from one search string. Confirming what any individual filing covers, or expanding past these 54 families, calls for reading the underlying documents.

Read the granted claims directly

A family count and an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Before drawing any freedom-to-operate conclusion, pull the granted claim set for any record of interest.

Open in Eureka

Broaden or narrow the search string

This dataset reflects one TAC search with no date limit. Adjusting the terms would surface a different set of records and families.

Run a new 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 Hydropower Plant Optimal Unit Commitment Scheduling Algorithm 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

Common questions about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Hydropower Plant Optimal Unit Commitment Scheduling Algorithm 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 Hydropower Plant Optimal Unit Commitment Scheduling Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole hydropower plant optimal unit commitment scheduling algorithm 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:((hydropower OR hydroelectric) AND ("unit commitment" OR "generation scheduling") AND (optimiz* OR algorithm))

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 (G06Q) carries 81.5% 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 61 records and 54 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. 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 54 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 54 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 (35 of 61). 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.

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.