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 45-family dataset on linear programming solver hardware acceleration, spanning filers from Tata Consultancy Services to Arista Networks.
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 In force = 35 of 75 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
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.
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.
Two views of the same 45 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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 EurekaUS20260122002A1, 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.


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 →Four figures drawn directly from the search results, each reported with the unit it was counted in.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 EurekaA 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 EurekaFiler 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 EurekaThis search returns 75 published records, which de-duplicate to 45 simple patent families once multiple filings of the same invention are merged. No date limit was applied, so this covers whatever filing years the search string happened to match rather than a defined period. Because the terms are specific, this is a small dataset and should be treated as a starting point rather than an exhaustive count of everything filed in this space.
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd is named on 3 of the 45 simple patent families in scope, a 6.7% share, the largest single-row figure among the listed filers. 44 of the 45 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so the set is spread across many distinct names rather than concentrated in a few. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and its subsidiaries would appear as separate rows if both are present.
The trend chart counts published records by earliest filing year, running from 2007 through 2026, with 2025 the peak year so far at 10 records. Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing and so are understated on the chart; this is a publication-lag effect, not a slowdown. The chart counts documents, not inventions, so a rise can also reflect the same invention being filed in more countries rather than more distinct inventions appearing.
US20260122002A1, titled "Packet Processor Resource Allocation Using Linear Programming" and filed by Arista Networks, Inc. on 2026-04-30, describes using a linear programming formulation to determine whether a feasible assignment of TCAM features to a network device's packet processor cycles exists for a given TCAM profile. It is simply the first record returned by this search under the database's default ordering, not a selection based on citations, breadth or significance. Establishing what its granted claims actually require, and whether any specific design falls inside them, requires reading the claim set itself rather than the abstract or any family count.
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%. These shares add to more than 100% because a single family can carry more than one IPC subclass. 22 subclasses appear across the full set, and the smaller ones are not broken out in detail here since the search terms used can also pull in unrelated matches at low volume.
Among the 6 largest receiving offices in this dataset, the United States carries the most published records at 26, followed by India (11), China (10), the EPO (10), WIPO/PCT (9) and Germany (4). The search returned 10 receiving offices in total, and these 6 figures do not sum to the full 75-record total. Receiving office reflects where an application was filed, not the nationality of the filer, which is not available in this dataset.
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.
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.
This page