https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/ldpc-error-correction-decoding-for-flash-memory-controllers-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-16 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Flash Memory & SSD Controllers

LDPC Error Correction Decoding Patents for Flash Memory Controllers

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
242
Simple Patent Families
8%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
68%
In Force at Cut-off

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 In force = 346 of 508 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 242 simple patent families and 508 published records sit in scope, with no date limit applied to the search string.
  • Silicon Motion Inc is named on 20 of the 242 families (8.3%), the highest single-row share in a list of 93 listed filers.
  • 71 of the 93 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, while 346 of 508 records (68%) were granted and still in force at retrieval.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

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 The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated out further here.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. SILICON MOTION INC20
  2. SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES LLC14
  3. SEAGATE TECH LLC11
  4. V & G INFORMATION SYSTEM CO LTD9
  5. INTEL CORP8
  6. MARVELL ASIA PTE LTD8
  7. SK HYNIX INC7
  8. HUAZHONG UNIV OF SCI & TECH7
  9. ARTMEM TECHNOLOGY CO LTD6
  10. NANDEXT SRL6

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.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for LDPC Error Correction Decoding for Flash Memory Controllers Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. 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
The Numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

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.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

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.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)0132538502420072009201148201320152017201920212023202552022 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. This chart covers 2007-2026 (497 records); the 508 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

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.

Technology composition by IPC subclassG06F · Electric digital data processi…15564.0%H03M · Coding & code conversion14359.1%G11C · Static & digital memories11145.9%G06N · Computing based on AI models31.2%H04L · Digital information transmissi…31.2%G11B · Information storage (magnetic/…20.8%

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%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for LDPC Error Correction Decoding for Flash Memory Controllers Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on LDPC Error Correction Decoding for Flash Memory Controllers Patent Landscape with Eureka

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 Eureka
Record in Focus

A record from the result set

Featured record
US10691535B22020-06-23

Flash memory error correction method and apparatus (US10691535B2)

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

The 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.

US10691535B2, patent drawing 1US10691535B2, 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 LDPC Error Correction Decoding for Flash Memory Controllers Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. 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 →
Patterns in the Data

What the filer and technology data show

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.

Largest single filer
20 of 242
families named (8.3%)

Silicon Motion Inc holds the largest single-row share

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.

Filer ranking, simple patent families
Filer distribution
71 of 93
listed filers hold ≤2 families

Most listed filers hold two families or fewer

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.

Filer ranking, simple patent families
Technology split
64.0% / 59.1% / 45.9%
share of 242 families

Three IPC subclasses each appear on close to half or more of the families

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.

IPC subclass tagging, simple patent families
Legal status
346 of 508
records granted and in force

68% of records were granted and in force at retrieval

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.

Legal status at retrieval date
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 ldpc error correction decoding for flash memory controllers 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 LDPC Error Correction Decoding for Flash Memory Controllers Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Where to Go From Here

Next steps for reading this landscape

The figures above describe what the search returned. Turning them into a filing or freedom-to-operate view requires reading the underlying documents directly.

Pull the granted claims that matter to your design

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 Eureka

Track the filers you plan to watch

Silicon 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 monitoring

Check adjacent IPC subclasses directly

G06F, 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 classifications
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for LDPC Error Correction Decoding for Flash Memory Controllers Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. 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 LDPC Error Correction Decoding for Flash Memory Controllers Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research LDPC Error Correction Decoding for Flash Memory Controllers Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

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.

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:((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.