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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/mapreduce-shuffle-data-transfer-optimization-protocol-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · 2026MapReduce Shuffle Data Transfer Optimization Patents
A 21-family dataset on MapReduce shuffle transfer optimization, with filer spread, IPC mix and a recent filing window.
34
Published Records
21
Simple Patent Families
44%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
34 published records collapse into 21 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 15 of 34 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 21 simple patent families and 34 published records make up the full set returned for this search, with no date limit applied.
- International Business Machines Corporation is named on 6 of the 21 families (28.6%), the largest single-row share in the listed filers.
- 15 of the 16 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, the rest of the list beyond the single largest row.
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page reports every record the search string TAC:((mapreduce OR "map-reduce") AND shuffle AND (transfer OR optimiz*)) returned, with no date limit applied. It resolves to 21 simple patent families across 34 published records, and 15 of those 34 records (44%) were granted and still in force at retrieval.
21 families is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a search, not a map of the field: absence of a name or a classification here is far more likely to reflect the search string than an empty branch of the art.
Records vs. families in scope
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 GRID (STATE GRID SHANGHAI MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC POWER CO, STATE GRID CORPORATION OF CHINA). 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 (9 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 16 of the 16 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 16 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 MapReduce Shuffle Data Transfer Optimization Protocol Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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 mix
Two views of the same 21 families: how the matching records were filed over time, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Filing trend (published records by earliest filing year)
The chart shows a recent window only and counts published records, not families, the same invention filed in several countries adds more than one mark. 2016 is the peak so far at 7 records; 2022 onward is still filling in as records continue to publish, so no decline should be read into the most recent years.
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.
IPC subclass composition
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 19 of the 21 families (90.5%), and H04L (Digital information transmission) on 5 of the 21 (23.8%). Families can carry both classes, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 21 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 MapReduce Shuffle Data Transfer Optimization Protocol Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on MapReduce Shuffle Data Transfer Optimization Protocol Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about mapreduce shuffle data transfer optimization protocol patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaExample record
A record from the result set
First record returned (database default order)
Enabling rewire-aware MapReduce cluster in disaggregated systems
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
The abstract describes MapReduce processing in a disaggregated compute environment with separate processor and memory pools. A task scheduler allocates processors and memory modules from those pools and schedules a set of tasks for a MapReduce job, with at least one task scheduled irrespective of the location of the data it needs. The description connects this allocation to a shuffle phase of the job.This is simply the first record the search returns under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, not from this abstract or from any family count.
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 MapReduce Shuffle Data Transfer Optimization Protocol Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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
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 →Reading the data
What the figures show
Three figures from this dataset, reported as counted, without ranking or interpreting what they mean for any one filer.
Scope
21 families / 34 records
simple patent families / published records
Two different counts of the same search
The search returned 34 published records that de-duplicate to 21 simple patent families. No date limit was applied, so this is every matching record the string found, not a fixed year span.
Counted at retrieval on 2026-10-21.
Filers
28.6%
share held by the largest single row
International Business Machine Corporation named on 6 of 21 families
This is the single largest row in the listed filers, who are counted in simple patent families. The next 15 listed filers each hold 2 or fewer families; filer rows overlap and are never summed into a combined share on this page.
16 entities listed; the list is organisations only.
Classes
90.5% / 23.8%
share of 21 families carrying G06F / H04L
G06F and H04L are the two subclasses named here
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 19 of 21 families and H04L (Digital information transmission) on 5 of 21. These shares add to more than 100% because a family can carry both classes.
Other subclasses in the chart are not characterised in this text.
Offices
20 / 11 / 2 / 1
published records by receiving office
Four receiving offices account for all 34 records
Records were filed with the United States (20), China (11), India (2) and the United Kingdom (1), counted in published records, which is one mark per office an invention was filed in. This describes where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
All four offices returned by the search are listed.
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 mapreduce shuffle data transfer optimization protocol patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for MapReduce Shuffle Data Transfer Optimization Protocol Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Where to take this
This page is a starting point built from one search string. Narrowing or widening that string, or reading specific claim sets, is the next step for any decision that depends on scope.
Pull the granted claims
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what any patent covers. Reading the granted claims of records that matter to a specific design is the only way to assess scope.
Open in Eureka →Re-run with adjacent terms
A 21-family pool this small is sensitive to the exact search string used. Adjacent terms for shuffle-phase data transfer may surface records this string did not catch.
Explore in 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 MapReduce Shuffle Data Transfer Optimization Protocol Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Questions about this dataset
This search returned 34 published records that de-duplicate to 21 simple patent families, with no date limit applied. A simple patent family groups publications covering the same invention across countries, so the family count is the better figure for counting inventions rather than documents. Because the underlying search string is narrow and no date range was set, this figure reflects exactly what that string matched, not a count of every patent anywhere touching MapReduce shuffle mechanics.
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 6 of the 21 simple patent families (28.6%), the largest single-row share among the 16 listed filers. Fifteen of those 16 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. The filer list contains organisations only, filings by named individuals are excluded from it but remain inside the total family and record counts.
No. Two listed rows begin with the same word, State Grid Shanghai Municipal Electric Power Co and State Grid Corporation Of China, and they are listed separately rather than merged. Filer rows generally overlap because one family can name more than one filer, so summing any set of rows, related-looking or not, over-counts by an unknown amount. Each share on this page applies to the one row it was read from.
The trend counts published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated families, so an invention filed in several countries adds more than one mark to the same year. The chart's peak so far is 2016 at 7 records, and the chart window shown is recent only, not the full scope of the search. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later publications appear, so no decline should be read into the most recent years; publication lag of 18 months or more means recent filings are still underrepresented.
The search returned records filed with four receiving offices: the United States (20 published records), China (11), India (2) and the United Kingdom (1). These figures are counted in published records, so an invention filed in multiple offices contributes to each office's count. This breakdown shows where applications were filed, not where any filer or inventor is based, no nationality or country information for filers is available in this dataset.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for MapReduce Shuffle Data Transfer Optimization Protocol Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research MapReduce Shuffle Data Transfer Optimization Protocol Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole mapreduce shuffle data transfer optimization protocol patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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:((mapreduce OR "map-reduce") AND shuffle AND (transfer OR optimiz*))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 90.5% 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 34 records and 21 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 (9 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 16 of the 16 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 16 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 2026-10-21.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (15 of 34). 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.