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 4-family patent set on JIT compiler code optimization, with filer spread, IPC mix and filing history to start a focused search.
23 published records collapse into 4 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 15 of 23 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This dataset is built from a targeted search string combining just-in-time compilation or JIT compiler terms with code optimization or bytecode translation terms, restricted to records that also reference execution. It returns 23 published records, which de-duplicate to 4 simple patent families once filings for the same invention across different countries are collapsed. The search carries no date limit, so coverage runs across whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a fixed window.
With only 4 families in scope, this is a small, narrow slice rather than a map of a field. Treat the numbers here as a starting point for a focused search, not as a measure of how much patenting activity exists around JIT optimization overall.
Counted over all 23 published records, including filings from before 2015; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 18 records from 2015 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. 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 4 of the 4 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 4 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 counted either in published records or in simple patent families; each chart states which.
Records peaked at 16 in 2016. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the most recent part of the chart understates what will eventually be there, this is a publication-lag effect, not a drop in 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. This chart covers 2015-2026 (18 records); the 23 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on all 4 families in scope. G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 1 of the 4. Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 4 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 just-in-time compilation code optimization engine patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaDescribed systems and methods allow protecting a computer system from computer security threats such as malware and spyware. In some embodiments, a security application executes a set of detection routines to determine whether a set of monitored entities (processes, threads, etc.) executing on the computer system comprise malicious software. The detection routines are formulated in bytecode and executed within a bytecode translation virtual machine. Execution of a detection routine comprises translating bytecode instructions of the respective routine into native processor instructions, for instance via interpretation or just-in-time compilation.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citation, novelty or importance. It is shown to illustrate one way the search terms surface in an actual filing, filed by Bitdefender IPR Management.


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 search; none of them ranks or interprets what a filer is doing.
The search string resolves to 4 simple patent families from 23 published records. No date limit was applied, so this reflects whatever years the matching records happen to fall in, not a chosen span.
Four listed filers, Lastbot Europe Oy, International Business Machine Corporation, Intel Corp and Bitdefender IPR Management, are each named on 1 of the 4 simple patent families. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and are not summed across rows here.
G06F (electric digital data processing) is classified on all 4 simple patent families in scope. G06N (AI-based computing) appears on 1 of the 4. Because a family can carry multiple IPC codes, these two figures do not sum to a total.
15 of the 23 published records were granted and in force at the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. This is a snapshot of legal status, not a measure of how many filings succeeded or failed; the remaining records are not broken out further here.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to just-in-time compilation code optimization engine patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
A 4-family result set is a starting point, not a finished map. These are reasonable next moves for narrowing or widening the search.
A family count and an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Anyone assessing freedom to operate around JIT optimization needs to read the claim set itself, not infer scope from this page.
Open a claim-level search in Patsnap EurekaA 4-family result is sensitive to exact wording. Trying synonyms for bytecode translation, interpreter virtual machines or dynamic recompilation may surface adjacent filings this exact string does not catch.
Rebuild the search in Patsnap EurekaLastbot Europe Oy, IBM, Intel and Bitdefender IPR Management each hold 1 family here under this search. Watching each by name, rather than assuming any corporate grouping, keeps the picture accurate as new filings publish.
Set up filer alerts in Patsnap EurekaThis specific search returns 23 published records, which collapse to 4 simple patent families once the same invention's filings across different countries are merged. That is a small, narrow result tied to one exact search string, not a count of every patent that might touch JIT compiler optimization under different wording. A broader or differently worded search against the same databases would likely return a different number.
Four listed filers appear in this result: Lastbot Europe Oy, International Business Machine Corporation, Intel Corp and Bitdefender IPR Management, each named on 1 of the 4 simple patent families. None holds more than the others under this search, and the list excludes filings held by named individuals even though those are counted in the overall totals. Filer names are not rolled up to corporate group, so any parent-subsidiary relationships among these names are not reflected here.
The abstract for US9460284B1, filed by Bitdefender IPR Management, describes a security application that formulates malware-detection routines in bytecode and runs them inside a bytecode translation virtual machine, translating instructions to native code via interpretation or just-in-time compilation. That description tells you what the filing is about, not what its granted claims legally require, claim scope has to be read from the claim set and prosecution history directly. An abstract and a family count cannot be used to decide whether any particular design falls inside or outside its coverage.
This page does not show a growth rate for this dataset: the filing trend is counted in published records by earliest filing year, peaking at 16 records in 2016, but reading a trajectory into a 4-family pool is not something the data supports. Records from 2022 onward are also still filling in, since filings take time to publish, so the newest years will always look lower than they eventually become. Treat any year-to-year change here as noise rather than a signal of rising or falling activity.
The search returned 10 receiving offices in total. The largest of those shown include Israel and the United States with 4 published records each, Europe (EPO) and WIPO (PCT) with 3 each, and Australia and Canada with 2 each. These figures count where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, and they do not sum to the full record total since only the largest offices are listed here.
Go past this page: query the whole just-in-time compilation code optimization engine 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:(("just-in-time compilation" OR "JIT compiler") AND ("code optimization" OR "bytecode translation") AND execution)
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 100.0% 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 23 records and 4 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 4 of the 4 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 4 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 (15 of 23). 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