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/image-segmentation-using-graph-cut-algorithms-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent LandscapeImage Segmentation Using Graph Cut Algorithms: Patent Filing Patterns
223 families and 529 records cover graph-cut image segmentation; Microsoft Technology Licensing holds the largest single filer row at 4.5%.
529
Published Records
223
Simple Patent Families
4%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
39%
In Force at Cut-off
529 published records collapse into 223 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC is named on 10 of the 223 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 In force = 204 of 529 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 223 simple patent families and 529 published records make up this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
- Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC is named on 10 of the 223 families (4.5%), the largest single filer row; 82 of the 93 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
- G06T (image data processing) appears on 75.8% of the 223 families, ahead of G06K at 28.3% and G06V at 25.1%.
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This landscape draws on a search for "graph cut" or "graph-based segmentation" combined with image or pixel segmentation terms, across title, abstract and claims. It returns 223 simple patent families and 529 published records, with no start or end date applied to the query, so the set spans whatever years the matching text appears in.
The filing-trend chart below shows a recent window only, not the full history behind these totals. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the most recent years understate the eventual count.
Records and families in scope
Counted over all 529 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 460 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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC, MICROSOFT CORP). 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 (7 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 93 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 93 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 Image Segmentation Using Graph Cut Algorithms Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Numbers
Filing volume, technology split and legal status
These figures are drawn directly from the search results: a filing trend by earliest filing year, and the IPC subclasses that these families are classified under.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (460 of 529 published records)
Published records run from 2007 (11 records) to 2026 (10 records), with a peak of 56 records in 2015. 2022 onward is shaded as an incomplete stretch still filling in with later publications; this series counts documents, not de-duplicated inventions.
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 (460 records); the 529 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass composition (share of 223 families)
G06T (image data processing & generation) appears on 75.8% of the 223 families, G06K (data recognition & presentation) on 28.3%, and G06V (image/video recognition) on 25.1%. Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 223 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 Image Segmentation Using Graph Cut Algorithms Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Image Segmentation Using Graph Cut Algorithms Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about image segmentation using graph cut algorithms patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaExample Record
A record from the result set
From the search results
Method and device for image segmentation
XIAOMI INC.
The disclosure describes establishing a saliency model of an image, obtaining foreground and background sample points from that model, building a foreground/background classification model from those points, and segmenting the image with a graph cut algorithm that uses the classification model together with pixel edge information. The stated aim is reducing the need for a user to manually select the image foreground.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, breadth or date.
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 Image Segmentation Using Graph Cut Algorithms Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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 classification figures show
Three figures from this search are worth holding onto: how concentrated filing is at the top, how classifications overlap, and what legal status at retrieval does and does not tell you.
Filer concentration
10 of 223 families
largest single filer row
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC named on 10 families
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC is named on 10 of the 223 simple patent families in scope (4.5%), the largest single filer row returned by this search. A separate row, Microsoft Corp, is listed too; the two rows are not merged or added together here because one family can name both.
Filer list, 93 entities, organisations
Long tail
82 of 93 filers
hold 2 or fewer families
Most listed filers hold one or two families
82 of the 93 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. That leaves a small number of rows, including the one above, accounting for the rest of the filing activity captured in this list.
Counted in simple patent families
Technology split
75.8% of 223 families
classified under G06T
G06T carries the highest share of the technology split
G06T (image data processing & generation) is the IPC subclass on the most families in this search, at 75.8% of the 223 in scope, ahead of G06K (28.3%) and G06V (25.1%). Because one family can carry several IPC classes, these three shares overlap and add to more than 100%.
IPC subclass tagging, 27 subclasses in all
Legal status
204 of 529 records
granted and in force
39% of records were granted and in force at retrieval
204 of the 529 published records (39%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further.
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 image segmentation using graph cut algorithms 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 Image Segmentation Using Graph Cut Algorithms Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps
Where to take this next
The figures above describe what this search returned. Narrowing or verifying any of it calls for tools built for claim-level and entity-level work.
Read the granted claims directly
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent's claims cover. Pull the granted claim set for any record that matters to a design decision before drawing a conclusion from it.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaTrack the filers that recur
A handful of rows here, such as the Microsoft and Siemens entries, appear more than once under related names. Checking each row separately, rather than assuming a shared group, avoids over-reading the concentration.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Image Segmentation Using Graph Cut Algorithms Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this landscape
This search returns 223 simple patent families and 529 published records, with no date limit applied to the query. A family is one invention counted once regardless of how many countries it was filed in, while a record is counted once per publication, so the same invention can produce several records. Because the search string sets no start year, this figure reflects everything matching the search terms across titles, abstracts and claims, not a fixed historical window.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC is named on 10 of the 223 simple patent families (4.5%), the largest single filer row in this dataset. A separate row, Microsoft Corp, also appears in the listed filers, and three Siemens-named rows appear separately as well; none of these related-looking rows are merged or summed on this page because one family can name more than one of them. Beyond the top rows, 82 of the 93 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so filing is spread thinly outside a small number of rows.
Classified by IPC subclass, 75.8% of the 223 families carry G06T (image data processing & generation), the highest share of any subclass in this set. G06K (data recognition & presentation) and G06V (image/video recognition) follow at 28.3% and 25.1% respectively. These shares overlap and add to more than 100% because a single family can be classified under more than one subclass, and 27 subclasses appear in total across the dataset.
204 of the 529 published records (39%) were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remaining records fall into pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable status, but this dataset does not separate those categories out, so no further breakdown of the remainder can be given. In-force status reflects a snapshot at retrieval and changes continuously as applications are examined, granted, abandoned or expire.
Not necessarily. The filing trend here counts published records by earliest filing year, and the same invention filed in multiple countries produces multiple records in that count, so a rising line can reflect wider filing of existing inventions rather than more of them. The trend also shows a recent window only; years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, with publication lag commonly running 18 to 30 months, so recent years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a decline or a slowdown.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Image Segmentation Using Graph Cut Algorithms Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Image Segmentation Using Graph Cut Algorithms Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole image segmentation using graph cut algorithms 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 cut" OR "graph-based segmentation") AND (image OR pixel) AND segmentation)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 (G06T) carries 75.8% 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 529 records and 223 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 (7 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 93 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 93 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 2026-10-27.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (204 of 529). 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.