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 6-family, 14-record dataset on multi-function display GPU architecture, with filer, IPC and receiving-office breakdowns.
14 published records collapse into 6 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 6 of 14 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports results for the search string targeting titles, abstracts and claims combining multi-function display, primary flight display or multifunction display terms with graphics processing unit or graphics processor language, restricted to avionics records. The search carries no date limit, so the records in scope span whatever filing years the matching documents happen to fall in, with no particular start year implied. Counted in simple patent families, the set resolves to 6 inventions; counted in published records, those same inventions appear 14 times across the receiving offices shown.
With only 6 families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat the figures here as a starting point for a further search rather than a map of a field, a handful of documents cannot establish concentration, trend or white space on its own.
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 (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 5 of the 5 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 5 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.
Two views of the same 6-family, 14-record dataset: how the published records are distributed by earliest filing year, and how the families split across IPC subclasses.
Records run from a 2010 count of 2 up to a peak of 6 in 2017, falling to 0 by 2026. The stretch from 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings publish, so the drop at the right-hand edge reflects publication lag rather than a change in filing activity.
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.
B64D (Aircraft equipment) carries the highest share at 50.0% of the 6 families, followed by G01C (Distance, navigation & gyroscopes) and H04N (Pictorial communication) at 33.3% each. Because a family can carry more than one IPC subclass, these shares add up to more than 100% and should be read individually rather than summed.
Shares are the percentage of the 6 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 multi-function display graphics processing unit architecture patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a method for a cockpit multi-function display (MFD) that receives a vehicle profile via downlink communication describing how a pilot is currently using the MFD, determines whether an MFD map application is displaying information, and if so defines a set of potential information enhancements based on that vehicle profile before collecting corresponding information to present.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, grant status or breadth. What the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish that.


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 evidence set, each reported with the unit it was counted in.
6 of the 14 published records (43%) were granted and still in force when the data was pulled. The remainder cover pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable statuses, which are not broken out separately in this dataset.
Rockwell Collins Inc and Honeywell International Inc are each named on 2 of the 6 simple patent families, the highest count among the 5 listed filers. The filer rows cannot be summed against the family total because a family can name more than one filer.
B64D (Aircraft equipment) appears on 3 of the 6 families in scope, the highest share of any subclass reported. G01C and H04N each appear on 2 of the 6 families (33.3%).
Of the 14 published records, 6 were filed at the United States, ahead of Europe (EPO) at 3, Austria and WIPO (PCT) at 2 each, and Germany at 1. These counts describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to multi-function display graphics processing unit architecture patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Six families is not enough to map a field, but it is enough to decide where a closer read is worth the time.
An abstract and a family count describe what a filing discusses, not what its claims require. Before drawing any conclusion about scope, pull the claim set for the records that matter to your question.
Open Eureka to search claims →A 6-family pool this size is as likely to reflect the search terms as the number of inventions that exist in this space. Varying the keyword combinations may surface records this string did not reach.
Explore related searches in Eureka →This dataset returns 6 simple patent families and 14 published records for the search string combining multi-function display, multifunction display or primary flight display terms with graphics processing unit or graphics processor language, restricted to avionics. A family is one invention de-duplicated across countries; a published record is one per publication, so the same invention can appear several times. With only 6 families in scope, this should be read as a starting point for further search rather than a full count of filings in this space.
Five organisations appear in the filer list returned by this search, led by a tie: Rockwell Collins Inc and Honeywell International Inc are each named on 2 of the 6 families, the highest count in the list. The remaining listed filers include Kyriakos, Tusas Turk Havacilik Ve Uzay Sanayii Anonim Sirketi, and Aspen Avionics Inc at lower counts. Because filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and can overlap on a single family, these counts should not be summed or treated as market shares.
B64D, covering aircraft equipment, appears on 3 of the 6 families in scope (50.0%), the highest share of any subclass reported for this dataset. G01C (distance, navigation and gyroscopes) and H04N (pictorial communication) each appear on 2 of the 6 families (33.3%). Because a single family can carry more than one IPC code, these percentages add to more than 100% and describe overlapping groupings rather than a strict split of the dataset.
US20180050815A1, filed by Honeywell International Inc, is simply the first record returned under the database's default ordering for this search, it is not flagged here as the most cited, the broadest or otherwise significant. Its abstract describes a method for a cockpit multi-function display that receives a downlink vehicle profile and defines information enhancements based on how the display is being used. What its granted claims actually cover has to be read from the claim set itself, since an abstract cannot establish claim scope.
The chart counts published records by earliest filing year, and records published after filing take time to appear, typically around 18 months, longer where a PCT application enters national phase. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in, so the apparent drop at the recent end reflects publication lag rather than fewer filings. The peak shown so far is 2017 at 6 published records, but this dataset is too thin to read a trend or growth rate from year-to-year moves.
Counted in published records, the United States accounts for 6 of the 14 records in scope, followed by Europe (EPO) at 3, Austria and WIPO (PCT) at 2 each, and Germany at 1. These figures describe the receiving office where an application was filed, not the nationality or location of the filer, that information is not available in this dataset. One invention can show up at more than one office, so these counts sum to the record total rather than the family total.
Go past this page: query the whole multi-function display graphics processing unit architecture 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:(("multi-function display" OR "multifunction display" OR "primary flight display") AND ("graphics processing unit" OR "graphics processor") AND avionics)
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 14 records and 6 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 5 of the 5 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 5 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 2026-10-15.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (6 of 14). 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.
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