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 →232 patent families and 528 records cover microcode patch update architecture, with one filer named on 60 families and a long tail of single-filing entrants.
528 published records collapse into 232 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. INTEL CORP is named on 60 of the 232 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 In force = 202 of 528 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape is built from the search string TAC:((microcode) AND (patch* OR update) AND processor), which returns 232 simple patent families and 528 published records with no date restriction applied. A family groups the same invention across the countries it was filed in; a record counts each publication separately, so the same invention filed in several offices produces several records against one family.
Of the 528 published records, 202 (38%) were granted and remained in force at the 2026-10-16 retrieval date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further.
Counted over all 528 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 341 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 start with the same name (INTEL CORP, INTEL PRODUCTS IP 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. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (13 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 87 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 87 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
The two series below use different units, published records for the filing trend, simple patent families for the technology split, and are not interchangeable.
Recorded filings run from 12 records in 2007 to a peak of 40 records in 2015, with 5 records showing for 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so that stretch understates eventual volume and should not be read as a decline.
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 (341 records); the 528 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 192 of the 232 families in scope, 82.8%. Families can carry more than one IPC class, so subclass shares in the chart add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 232 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 microcode patch update architecture for processor instruction sets patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes RAM provided in a processor to implement microcode patches, loaded by a microcode routine that is part of the normal microcode held in a ROM unit. On power-up the processor uses only its ROM microcode unless patches are installed; where a patch is enabled for an accessed microcode line, the patch executes instead. A patch is enabled by setting a match register with the address of the ROM microcode line to be patched, and the patch runs when the ROM address matches the register contents.US6438664B1, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., published 2002-08-20. Shown as the first record the search returns under default ordering, not as the most cited, newest or broadest filing in scope.


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 →These figures describe counts returned by the search string, not claim scope, market position or company strategy.
INTEL CORP is named on 60 of the 232 simple patent families in scope, 25.9%. A separate row, INTEL PRODUCTS IP LLC, is listed apart from it; the two rows are not merged or summed here because one family can name more than one filer.
70 of the 87 organisations in the listed filer set hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each, against a fifth-place count of 7 and a tenth-place count of 4. Filer rows overlap where a family names more than one filer, so these counts cannot be added into a combined share.
192 of the 232 simple patent families, 82.8%, carry an IPC classification in G06F (electric digital data processing). Families may carry more than one IPC class, so this share is not exclusive of the other 37 subclasses the search returned.
202 of the 528 published records (38%) were granted and in force as of the 2026-10-16 retrieval date. This is a snapshot of legal status at one point in time, not a measure of the quality or value of any filing, and it will continue to change as records move through prosecution or lapse.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to microcode patch update architecture for processor instruction sets patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures here describe what the search string returned. Narrowing or re-running the search inside a dedicated workspace is the way to test whether a specific filer, claim element or jurisdiction looks different under a tighter query.
Pull the full filing list for INTEL CORP or any other listed row inside Patsnap Eureka to see which families sit behind the count, rather than relying on the aggregate figure alone.
Open Eureka →A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Pull the claim set for any record of interest before drawing conclusions about scope.
Explore claim data →This search string is broad by design. Narrowing the TAC string around a specific patch mechanism may change which subclasses and filers surface.
Build a new search →This search returns 232 simple patent families and 528 published records for the string TAC:((microcode) AND (patch* OR update) AND processor), with no date limit applied. A family groups one invention across the countries it was filed in, while a record counts each publication separately, which is why the record total is larger. These counts reflect exactly what this search string matches and should not be read as a count of every microcode-patching patent filed anywhere, since a different query could catch a different set.
INTEL CORP is named on 60 of the 232 simple patent families in scope, 25.9%, the largest count for a single row in the listed filer set. A separate row, INTEL PRODUCTS IP LLC, appears independently and is not added to that figure, because one family can name more than one filer and summing rows would over-count. Beyond the top rows, 70 of the 87 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so the field includes a small number of higher-count rows alongside a much larger group of single or low-count entrants.
This dataset does not break legal status down by individual filer, so no in-force figure specific to INTEL CORP can be stated. Across the whole dataset, 202 of the 528 published records (38%) were granted and in force at the 2026-10-16 retrieval date, with the remainder pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable. Checking the status of any individual Intel-named family requires pulling that family's record directly rather than inferring it from the aggregate figure.
The abstract for US6438664B1, assigned to Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and published 2002-08-20, describes RAM in a processor used to hold microcode patches loaded by a routine inside the processor's normal ROM microcode. On power-up the processor runs ROM microcode unless a patch is installed; where a patch is enabled for an accessed line, a match register holding that line's address triggers the patch to run instead. This is a summary of what the abstract describes, not a reading of the granted claims, and determining what the patent actually covers requires pulling and reading the claim set itself.
192 of the 232 simple patent families in scope, 82.8%, carry an IPC classification in G06F, electric digital data processing. The search returned 37 subclasses in total, but families can carry more than one classification, so subclass shares add up to more than 100% rather than partitioning the dataset. Because several of the returned subclasses sit well below G06F in share, this page focuses its discussion on G06F rather than characterising the smaller classes, which may include matches the broad search string picked up incidentally.
The filing trend, counted in published records by earliest filing year, runs from 12 records in 2007 to a peak of 40 records in 2015 and shows 5 records for 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing, so that recent stretch understates its eventual count and should not be read as a drop in activity. This dataset does not support a growth-rate figure or a maturity judgement beyond noting where the recorded peak falls.
Go past this page: query the whole microcode patch update architecture for processor instruction sets 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:((microcode) AND (patch* OR update) AND processor)
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 82.8% 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 528 records and 232 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 (13 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 87 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 87 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 (202 of 528). 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