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 →531 records and 265 families on iris segmentation and normalization, with filing split across 85 organisations and no single leader.
531 published records collapse into 265 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. GENTEX CORP is named on 7 of the 265 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 In force = 207 of 531 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
The search string TAC:((iris) AND (segmentation OR normalization) AND (recognition OR biometric)) returns 531 published records, which de-duplicate across countries into 265 simple patent families. No date limit was applied, so this is every matching record the search string finds regardless of filing year; the filing-trend chart further down shows a recent window only and should not be read as the full span of the dataset.
Of the 531 records, 207 (39%) were granted and still in force at retrieval. That figure describes legal status at a point in time, not how many of the underlying inventions succeeded commercially or how strong any single claim is.
Counted over all 531 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 455 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. 3 rows in this table share the name EYECOOL (BEIJING EYECOOL TECHNOLOGY CO LTD, EYECOOL SHENZHEN TECH CO LTD, EYECOOL TECHNOLOGY CO LTD). 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 (15 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 85 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 85 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.
Two views of the same 265-family pool: how published records have accumulated by filing year, and which IPC subclasses the families sit under.
The series runs from 2007 (46 records) to a peak so far of 47 records in 2016, through 2026 (17 records). Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing and are shaded on the chart; publication lag of 18-30 months means those recent years will keep rising as more documents clear. The series counts published records, not inventions, so a single invention filed in several countries adds several marks to the line.
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 (455 records); the 531 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06K (data recognition & presentation) carries the highest share of the 265 families at 57.7%, ahead of G06V (image/video recognition) at 29.4%, G06F (electric digital data processing) at 22.3%, and G06N (AI-based computing) and G06T (image data processing & generation) each at 20.4%. A family can carry more than one IPC class, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 265 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 iris image segmentation and normalization algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes reliable human identification and verification for access control in information-secured systems such as banking, passport and personal-identification systems. It frames conventional username/password and ID-card methods as vulnerable to forgetting or theft, and positions iris biometric identification as an approach to human identification and verification for use as a standard authentication and access method.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate what one record in this dataset looks like, not as representative of the field.


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 →These cards report figures directly from the dataset: who files most by row count, how concentrated or spread the filer list is, and which IPC subclasses carry the most families.
Gentex Corp and Beijing Eyecool Technology Co Ltd are each named on 7 of the 265 simple patent families, the highest count among the listed rows. Three further rows begin with the name Eyecool and are listed separately; they are not added together here, and no single row in this dataset exceeds 7.
70 of the 85 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The list covers organisations only; filings held by named individuals are removed from this list but remain inside the total family and record counts.
G06K (data recognition & presentation) appears on 153 of the 265 families (57.7%), the highest share of any IPC subclass in this dataset. G06V (image/video recognition) follows at 29.4%. A family can carry more than one IPC class, so subclass shares add to more than 100%.
207 of the 531 published records (39%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. This is a snapshot of legal status at one point in time, not a success rate, and it changes continuously as documents grant, lapse or are withdrawn.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to iris image segmentation and normalization algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures on this page describe what one search string returns. Reading individual claim sets or tracking a specific filer's activity over time calls for a closer, interactive pass.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Where a specific filing matters to a design or a filing decision, the claim set itself has to be read directly in Patsnap Eureka.
Open in EurekaThe filer rows here are not rolled up to corporate group, and a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate rows. Eureka can follow a single legal entity's filings over time rather than relying on a point-in-time count.
Explore filer activityThis search returns 531 published records, which de-duplicate across countries into 265 simple patent families. The family count is the better measure of distinct inventions because it removes the effect of filing the same invention in multiple countries. No date limit was applied to the search string, so this set spans whatever years the matching terms happen to appear in, not a fixed recent window.
Two filers share the highest count among the listed rows: Gentex Corp and Beijing Eyecool Technology Co Ltd, each named on 7 of the 265 simple patent families. Three further rows begin with the name Eyecool and are listed as separate rows rather than combined, since one family can name more than one of them. No row in the listed filers exceeds 7 families, and 70 of the 85 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so filing is spread across a long tail of organisations rather than held by a single row.
G06K, covering data recognition and presentation, carries the highest share of the 265 families at 57.7%, followed by G06V (image/video recognition) at 29.4%, G06F (electric digital data processing) at 22.3%, and G06N and G06T each at 20.4%. A single family can be classified under more than one IPC subclass, so these shares add to more than 100% and should not be read as a partition of the dataset. The split shows which classification branches the matched families fall under, not which technical approach is more advanced or more commercially used.
An abstract, like the AU2021102309A4 record in this dataset, describes the general subject matter and purpose of a filing but does not state what the granted claims actually require. Claim scope lives in the granted claim set and its prosecution history, not in the summary language of an abstract. Anyone needing to know whether a specific design falls inside or outside a patent's protection has to read the granted claims directly rather than relying on the abstract or on family counts.
This page does not report a growth rate for this dataset, because the data is too thin and the most recent years are still filling in to support one. The filing trend by earliest filing year runs from 46 records in 2007 to a peak of 47 in 2016, with records filed from 2022 onward still publishing due to typical 18-to-30-month publication lag. Treat any apparent drop in the last few years as an artefact of that lag rather than a real decline in filing activity.
Go past this page: query the whole iris image segmentation and normalization algorithm 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:((iris) AND (segmentation OR normalization) AND (recognition OR biometric))
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.
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 531 records and 265 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 (15 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 85 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 85 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 2026-10-16.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (207 of 531). 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.
This page