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/massively-parallel-simd-array-processor-architecture-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-16 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · High-Performance ComputingMassively Parallel SIMD Array Processor Architecture Patents
A 46-family dataset on SIMD array processor architectures, where one filer holds over half the families and a long tail files once or twice.
130
Published Records
46
Simple Patent Families
1%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
130 published records collapse into 46 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 1 of 130 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 46 simple patent families and 130 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search.
- International Business Machine Corporation is named on 25 of the 46 families (54.3%), the highest share of any single filer in the listed set.
- 11 of the 13 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, the rest of the filer list beyond the top row.
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This dataset gathers records matching SIMD and array processor together with either processing element or parallel lane in the title, abstract or claims. It returns 46 simple patent families drawn from 130 published records, with no start or end year set by the search string itself. The filing-trend chart below shows a recent window only, not the full span of records in scope.
At 46 families, this is a small pool. The figures below describe what the search returned, not a map of the field, absence of a term in a subclass or a year most likely reflects the search string rather than an absence of filing activity. Treat this page as a starting point for a closer search, not a finished landscape.
Families and records in scope
Counted over all 130 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 16 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (6 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 13 of the 13 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 13 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 Massively Parallel SIMD Array Processor Architecture 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
Data
Filing trend and technology composition
The two figures below are counted in different units, records for the filing trend, families for the technology split, and are not interchangeable.
Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (16 of 130 published records)
The chart shows a window that opens in 2007, the highest year shown in that window at 4 records, with 114 records filed before 2007 sitting outside the chart entirely. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the last few years understate eventual totals; no growth rate is stated because the window is too short and too thin to read one from.
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 (16 records); the 130 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2007 is the highest year shown, but it is also the first year in the window: earlier filings sit outside this chart, so this is not necessarily the historical peak.
Technology composition (IPC subclass, share of 46 families)
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 42 of the 46 families in scope, 91.3%, the only subclass with a share large enough to describe here. The dataset spans 11 subclasses in total; the smaller ones are shown on the chart but are not characterised in this text, since a broad search string can pull in unrelated matches at low volume.
Shares are the percentage of the 46 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 Massively Parallel SIMD Array Processor Architecture 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 Massively Parallel SIMD Array Processor Architecture Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about massively parallel simd array processor architecture 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)
US5659780A, Pipelined SIMD-systolic array processor and methods thereof
WU; CHEN-MIE
The abstract describes a pipelined SIMD-systolic array processor built from processing elements arranged as an array, with multiport memory, registers, multiplexers and a controller. The registers and multiplexers transfer data between the memory and the processing elements, combining broadcasting and systolic structures to move data into and out of each processing element, with the controller managing data transfer and per-element operation.This is the first record the search returns under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing. A family count and an abstract cannot establish what any granted claim actually requires, that has to be read from the claim set itself.
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 Massively Parallel SIMD Array Processor Architecture 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
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 →Insights
What the figures show
Three figures from this dataset, reported as counted, no ranking or interpretation beyond what the numbers state.
Largest filer
54.3%
share of 46 families
International Business Machine Corporation named on 25 of 46 families
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 25 of the 46 simple patent families in scope, 54.3%. This is a single-row figure from the filer table; it does not indicate claim scope, validity or enforceability, and filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group.
Source: filer table, family count
Long tail
11 of 13
listed filers
Most listed filers hold 2 or fewer families
Of the 13 organisations in the listed filer set, 11 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The list excludes individual filers, who are still counted in the 46-family total, and filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer.
Source: filer table, family count
Technology concentration
91.3%
of 46 families
G06F appears on 42 of 46 families
G06F, electric digital data processing, is tagged on 42 of the 46 families in scope, 91.3%. Families can carry more than one IPC subclass, so this share is read against the family total rather than against the other subclasses shown on the chart.
Source: IPC subclass breakdown
Legal status
1 of 130
records in force
1 record granted and in force at retrieval
At the retrieval date, 1 of the 130 published records (1%) was granted and still in force. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not available on this page.
Source: legal status at retrieval, 2026-10-16
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 massively parallel simd array processor architecture 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 Massively Parallel SIMD Array Processor Architecture 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
What's next
Go deeper on a specific record or filer
The figures above describe what this search returned. To act on them, a reader typically needs to pull individual claim sets or run a narrower search.
Read the granted claims directly
Family counts and abstracts cannot establish claim scope. For any record of interest, pull the full claim set before drawing a conclusion about what it covers.
Open in Patsnap EurekaNarrow the search string
This dataset mixes a dominant G06F concentration with several low-volume subclasses that may reflect search noise rather than genuine activity. A tighter query can separate the two.
Refine this search in Patsnap EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Massively Parallel SIMD Array Processor Architecture 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
Questions about this dataset
This search returns 46 simple patent families and 130 published records matching the search string. A family counts one invention regardless of how many countries it was filed in, while a record counts each publication separately, so the two numbers are not interchangeable. No date limit was applied, so this set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a fixed window.
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 25 of the 46 simple patent families in scope, 54.3%, the highest share of any single row in the listed filer set. This figure describes family count only, it says nothing about claim scope, validity or commercial value. The filer list is not rolled up to corporate group, so related entities, if any, appear as separate rows and are not added together here.
The dataset is too small, at 46 families, to support a conclusion about concentration in a broader field. What can be said is that one row, International Business Machine Corporation, holds 25 of the 46 families, and 11 of the 13 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. That pattern is arithmetic on this specific dataset, not evidence of control over a market.
US5659780A, titled 'Pipelined SIMD-systolic array processor and methods thereof', describes a processor built from processing elements in an array, with multiport memory, registers, multiplexers and a controller that moves data using both broadcasting and systolic structures. This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited or broadest filing in the set. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish that.
G06F, electric digital data processing, is tagged on 42 of the 46 families in scope, 91.3%, the only subclass large enough to characterise from this data. The dataset includes ten further subclasses at lower shares, visible on the chart but not detailed in the text, since a broad search string can return low-volume matches from unrelated fields. Readers interested in those smaller classes should check the underlying records directly rather than infer a pattern from the count alone.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Massively Parallel SIMD Array Processor Architecture 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 Massively Parallel SIMD Array Processor Architecture Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole massively parallel simd array processor architecture 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:((SIMD AND "array processor") AND ("processing element" OR "parallel lane"))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 91.3% 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 130 records and 46 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 (6 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 13 of the 13 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 13 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 (1 of 130). 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.