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 242-family dataset on LDPC decoding for flash and SSD controllers, led by a single filer with 8.3% share and a long tail of 71 smaller filers.
508 published records collapse into 242 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. SILICON MOTION INC is named on 20 of the 242 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 In force = 346 of 508 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape draws on a search for LDPC-based error correction and decoding applied to flash memory and SSD controllers, matched across title, abstract and claims text. It returns 242 simple patent families (one per invention, de-duplicated across countries) built from 508 published records (one per publication). No date limit was set on the search string, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching text covers.
Of the 508 records, 346 (68%) were granted and remained in force at the 2026-10-16 retrieval date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated out further here.
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 (INTEL CORP, INTEL NDTM US LLC). 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. 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Two views of the same 242-family dataset: how filings by earliest filing year appear across published records, and how the technology splits across IPC subclasses.
The published-record count runs from 24 in 2007 to a peak of 48 in 2012, then tapers toward 5 in 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as later publications arrive, including PCT applications that can take up to 30 months to enter national phase, so the recent downward slope understates actual filing activity rather than showing a decline.
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 (497 records); the 508 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Against the 242 families in scope, G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 64.0%, H03M (coding and code conversion) on 59.1%, and G11C (static and digital memories) on 45.9%. These shares add up to more than 100% because a single family can carry more than one of these classes at once.
Shares are the percentage of the 242 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 ldpc error correction decoding for flash memory controllers patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes determining a first data bit in a flash memory page where reads at an (n+1)th and an mth read voltage threshold produce different values for that bit, reducing the confidence level assigned to that bit under the (n+1)th-threshold read, and then performing error correction decoding using the adjusted confidence level.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default order, filed by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and published 2020-06-23. It is not presented as the most cited, newest or broadest record in the set.


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 figures describe the 242 families and 508 records returned by the search string; none of them imply which filer holds the strongest claims or where the technology is heading.
Silicon Motion Inc is named on 20 of the 242 simple patent families in scope, an 8.3% share. This is the single highest count among the 93 listed filers; it says nothing about the scope or strength of the claims in those families.
Of the 93 listed filers, 71 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and one family can name more than one filer, so these counts cannot be summed into a combined share.
G06F appears on 64.0% of the 242 families, H03M on 59.1% and G11C on 45.9%. These shares overlap and sum to more than 100% because a family can carry more than one of these classification codes.
346 of the 508 published records (68%) were granted and still in force on 2026-10-16. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that split is not broken out further in this dataset.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to ldpc error correction decoding for flash memory controllers patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures above describe what the search returned. Turning them into a filing or freedom-to-operate view requires reading the underlying documents directly.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Use Patsnap Eureka to retrieve the full claim set for any record named here before drawing conclusions about scope.
Open EurekaSilicon Motion Inc and the other listed filers can be monitored individually for new publications as they clear the 18–30 month lag this dataset shows.
Set up monitoringG06F, H03M and G11C account for the bulk of the tagged families here; reviewing the full classification list on a record-by-record basis can surface context this summary does not cover.
Explore classificationsThis search returns 242 simple patent families, built from 508 published records, matching text on LDPC-based error correction or decoding applied to flash memory or SSD controllers. The family count de-duplicates the same invention across the countries it was filed in, while the record count counts each publication separately, so the two numbers describe the same underlying set from different angles. No date limit was applied, so this reflects every matching record retrieved as of 2026-10-16, not a fixed year range.
Among the 93 listed filers in this dataset, Silicon Motion Inc is named on the most simple patent families: 20 of 242, an 8.3% share. Two rows beginning with Intel (INTEL CORP and INTEL NDTM US LLC) and three beginning with SK Hynix appear separately in the list and are not merged or summed here, since names are not rolled up to corporate group. A family count like this reflects filing volume only, not claim scope or enforceability.
US10691535B2, assigned to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and published 2020-06-23, describes identifying a data bit in a flash memory page that reads differently at two adjacent voltage thresholds, lowering the confidence assigned to that bit at the higher threshold's reading, and then running error correction decoding using that adjusted confidence. This is the abstract only; what the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself. It is presented here as the first record the search returns under default ordering, not as the most cited or most representative filing in the field.
The published-record trend runs from 24 records in 2007 to a peak of 48 in 2012, then tapers toward 5 in 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in, since publication can lag filing by 18 months or more and up to 30 months for PCT applications entering national phase, so the recent years understate actual filing activity rather than showing a real decline. With 242 families total, this dataset is not large enough to support a reliable growth-rate figure, and none is calculated here.
Three IPC subclasses account for most of the tagged families: G06F (electric digital data processing) on 64.0% of the 242 families, H03M (coding and code conversion) on 59.1%, and G11C (static and digital memories) on 45.9%. These shares sum to more than 100% because a single family can be tagged with more than one of these codes. The overlap means a family in G06F and H03M together reflects combined subject matter, not two separate inventions.
346 of the 508 published records (68%) were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-16 retrieval date. The remaining 32% covers pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable statuses combined, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further. In-force status reflects a snapshot at one point in time and changes continuously as patents are maintained, abandoned or expire, so it should not be read as a measure of a patent's quality or value.
Go past this page: query the whole ldpc error correction decoding for flash memory controllers 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:((LDPC AND ("error correction" OR decoding)) AND ("flash memory" OR "SSD controller"))
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 64.0% 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 508 records and 242 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 2026-10-16.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (346 of 508). 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