https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/linear-programming-solver-hardware-acceleration-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-16 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape

Linear Programming Solver Hardware Acceleration Patents

A 45-family dataset on linear programming solver hardware acceleration, spanning filers from Tata Consultancy Services to Arista Networks.

75
Published Records
45
Simple Patent Families
47%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

75 published records collapse into 45 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 35 of 75 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 45 simple patent families and 75 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search.
  • Tata Consultancy Services Ltd is named on 3 of the 45 families (6.7%), the largest single-row figure in the listed filers.
  • 44 of the 45 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, the honest measure of how spread out the listed filers are.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This page is built from a search for linear programming solver hardware acceleration, matching records that combine the term "linear programming" with "solver" and either "accelerat*" or "hardware" in the title, abstract or claims. It returns 75 published records, which de-duplicate down to 45 simple patent families once filings of the same invention across multiple countries are merged. No date range was applied, so the set spans whatever filing years the search string happened to match.

At 45 families, this is a small pool. The sections below describe what the search returned, not a map of a field or an industry: treat this as a starting point for a closer search in Patsnap Eureka rather than a conclusion about who is active in this space.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD3
  2. ZHEJIANG UNIV2
  3. HITACHI ENERGY LTD2
  4. THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY INC1
  5. ELEKTA INSTRUMENT AB1
  6. NEC LAB EURO GMBH1
  7. NANJING YOUKUO ELECTRICAL TECH1
  8. SHANGHAI TECH UNIV1
  9. SYMBIOSIS INT DEEMED UNIV1
  10. BEIJING POWER EXCHANGE CENT CO LTD1

Counted over all 75 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 71 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 share the name TECH (SHANGHAI TECH UNIV, AMAZON TECH INC). 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 (48 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 45 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 45 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 Linear Programming Solver Hardware Acceleration 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
The numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 45 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (71 of 75 published records)

The trend runs from 2007 through 2026, counting published records by earliest filing year, with 2025 the peak year so far at 10 records. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as they publish, so that stretch of the chart understates the eventual count and should not be read as a drop-off.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (71 of 75 published records)035810320072009201120132015201720192021202310202542022 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 (71 records); the 75 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

Technology composition (IPC subclass, share of 45 families)

G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 46.7% of the 45 families, G06Q (business, commerce and admin data processing) on 44.4%, and G06N (computing based on AI models) on 28.9%. A family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add up to more than 100%; 22 subclasses appear across the full set.

Technology composition (IPC subclass, share of 45 families)G06F · Electric digital data processi…2146.7%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…2044.4%G06N · Computing based on AI models1328.9%G05D · Control of non-electric variab…36.7%G05B · Control & regulating systems24.4%H02J · Power supply & grid systems24.4%H04W · Wireless communication networks24.4%A47L · Cleaning & washing appliances12.2%Other1431.1%

Shares are the percentage of the 45 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 Linear Programming Solver Hardware Acceleration 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 Linear Programming Solver Hardware Acceleration Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about linear programming solver hardware acceleration patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example record

One record from the result set

First record returned
US20260122002A12026-04-30

Packet Processor Resource Allocation Using Linear Programming

ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.

US20260122002A1, filed by Arista Networks, Inc., describes constructing a linear programming problem formulation to determine whether a feasible assignment of TCAM features to the cycles of a network device's packet processor exists for a given TCAM profile, and what that assignment would be if so.This is simply the first record the search returns under the database default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest document in the set.

US20260122002A1, patent drawing 1US20260122002A1, patent drawing 2
View this record in Patsnap Eureka

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 Linear Programming Solver Hardware Acceleration 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 →
Dataset snapshot

What the figures show

Four figures drawn directly from the search results, each reported with the unit it was counted in.

Legal status
35 of 75
records granted and in force

47% in force at retrieval

35 of the 75 published records were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-16 retrieval date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not available here. This is a status snapshot, not a success rate.

Legal status at retrieval
Largest filer
6.7%
of 45 families

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd: 3 of 45 families

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd is named on 3 of the 45 simple patent families in scope, a 6.7% share. This is the only single-row share the dataset supports; filer rows overlap where a family names more than one entity, so rows cannot be summed into a combined share.

Single-row share, not a combined total
Long tail
44 of 45
listed filers

Most listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

44 of the 45 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This count describes how spread the listed filers are across the dataset; it does not establish anything about the wider set of filers, since individual inventors are excluded from this list but remain in the totals.

Organisations only; individuals excluded from this list
Receiving offices
26
US-filed records

United States carries the most filed records among those listed

Among the 6 largest receiving offices shown, the United States carries 26 published records, ahead of India (11), China (10), the EPO (10), WIPO/PCT (9) and Germany (4). The search returned 10 receiving offices in total; these 6 do not sum to the 75-record total.

Receiving office = where filed, not filer nationality
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 linear programming solver hardware acceleration 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 Linear Programming Solver Hardware Acceleration 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
Next steps

Go deeper than this snapshot

This page reports counts and shares from one search string. A closer look typically means reading claims directly and widening or narrowing the search terms.

Read the granted claims

Family and IPC counts cannot establish what any patent's claims actually cover. Pull the granted claim set for any record that matters to a specific design before drawing conclusions about scope.

Open this search in Patsnap Eureka

Adjust the search string

A 45-family pool is thin enough that small wording changes can shift which records are captured. Try broader or narrower variants of the terms used here to see how the set changes.

Refine the search in Patsnap Eureka

Check filer rows individually

Filer names are not rolled up to corporate group, so related-looking rows must be checked one at a time rather than combined.

Inspect filers in Patsnap Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Linear Programming Solver Hardware Acceleration 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 Linear Programming Solver Hardware Acceleration 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 Linear Programming Solver Hardware Acceleration Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole linear programming solver hardware acceleration 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:(("linear programming") AND solver AND (accelerat* OR hardware))

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 75 records and 45 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 (48 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 45 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 45 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 (35 of 75). 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.