https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/multi-function-display-graphics-processing-unit-architecture-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Avionics Display Electronics

Multi-Function Display Graphics Processing Unit Architecture Patents

A 6-family, 14-record dataset on multi-function display GPU architecture, with filer, IPC and receiving-office breakdowns.

14
Published Records
6
Simple Patent Families
43%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

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 In force = 6 of 14 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 6 simple patent families and 14 published records make up this dataset, with no single top filer, Rockwell Collins Inc and Honeywell International Inc share the top count of 2 families each.
  • B64D (Aircraft equipment) appears on 3 of the 6 families (50.0%), the highest share of any IPC subclass in scope here.
  • Filed records cluster at the United States with 6 of the 14 published records, ahead of Europe (EPO) at 3 and Austria and WIPO (PCT) at 2 each.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Dataset Overview

What this dataset covers

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.

Records and families in scope
  1. ROCKWELL COLLINS INC2
  2. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC2
  3. KYRIAKOS1
  4. TUSAS TURK HAVACILIK VE UZAY SANAYII ANONIM SIRKETI1
  5. ASPEN AVIONICS INC1

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.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multi-Function Display Graphics Processing Unit Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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
Data Breakdown

Filing trend and technology composition

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.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

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.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)023562201020122014201662018202020222024020262022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

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 (share of 6 simple patent families)

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.

IPC subclass composition (share of 6 simple patent families)B64D · Aircraft equipment350.0%G01C · Distance, navigation & gyrosco…233.3%H04N · Pictorial communication (video…233.3%G01R · Electric & magnetic measurement116.7%G01W · Meteorology116.7%G02B · Optical elements & systems116.7%G06F · Electric digital data processi…116.7%G06T · Image data processing & genera…116.7%Other116.7%

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%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multi-Function Display Graphics Processing Unit Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Multi-Function Display Graphics Processing Unit Architecture Patent Landscape with Eureka

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 Eureka
Record in Focus

A record from the result set

Featured Record
US20180050815A12018-02-22

Systems and methods for providing augmented information for vehicle multi-function display electronics

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

The 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.

US20180050815A1, patent drawing 1US20180050815A1, patent drawing 2
View full record →

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 Multi-Function Display Graphics Processing Unit Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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
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 →
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 →
Key Figures

Reading the dataset in numbers

Four figures drawn directly from the evidence set, each reported with the unit it was counted in.

Legal status
6 of 14
records in force at retrieval

Status at the 2026-10-15 retrieval date

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.

Status changes continuously and is not a measure of claim strength.
Filer tie at the top
2 families
shared top count

No single filer leads this list

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.

The listed filers are organisations only; named individuals are removed from this list but remain in every total.
Technology split
50.0%
families tagged B64D

Aircraft equipment is the largest single IPC subclass

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%).

Subclass shares add to more than 100% because one family can carry several IPC codes.
Filing locations
6 of 14
records filed at the United States

United States carries the most filed records

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.

Receiving-office counts sum to the record total, not the family total.
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 multi-function display graphics processing unit architecture patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multi-Function Display Graphics Processing Unit Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Working with a dataset this size

Six families is not enough to map a field, but it is enough to decide where a closer read is worth the time.

Pull the granted claims

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 →

Broaden or vary the search string

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 →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multi-Function Display Graphics Processing Unit Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Frequently Asked

Questions about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multi-Function Display Graphics Processing Unit Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Multi-Function Display Graphics Processing Unit Architecture Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

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.

Try Eureka
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:(("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.