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 →182 patent families on multi-label classification for structured output, with filing trends, filer concentration and IPC technology splits.
211 published records collapse into 182 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. KUNMING UNIV OF SCI & TECH is named on 6 of the 182 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 In force = 84 of 211 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape covers 182 simple patent families and 211 published records matched by a search string requiring a multi-label classification mention together with a label/classifier term and a structured or correlation signal. No date limit was applied to the query, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a fixed window the search was told to look at.
The filer list returned by this search holds 76 organisations, counted by simple patent family and capped at the top 30 shown on this page; filings held by named individuals sit inside the totals but are removed from that organisation list. Technology composition is read from IPC subclasses attached to each family, and receiving-office counts are read from published records, so the two use different denominators and should not be compared directly.
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 (24 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 76 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 76 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.
These figures come directly from the search result set: 211 published records collapsing to 182 simple patent families, with no date restriction applied to the query.
The series runs from 1 record in 2013 to a peak so far of 34 records in 2025. The 2022-onward stretch is shaded because records filed in those years are still publishing, so the visible dip is a publication-lag artefact, not a drop in 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.
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 62.6% of the 182 families, followed by G06F (electric digital data processing) at 56.0%, G06K (data recognition & presentation) at 26.9% and G06V (image/video recognition) at 24.2%. Because a family can carry more than one subclass, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 182 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 label classification algorithm for structured output patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA framework for large-scale multi-label classification of an electronic document is described. An example multi-label classification system is configured to first apply weak classifiers and identify seed labels, then determine additional labels based on the seed labels and label correlation data derived from member profiles maintained by an on-line social network system. The multi-label classification system then constructs an s-t graph comprising nodes that correspond to the seed labels and the additional labels. A clustering algorithm is then applied to the constructed graph to arrive to a labels graph.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citation count, novelty or breadth. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, an abstract and a family count cannot establish claim 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 →Three figures from this search set are worth holding onto before looking at the ranked tables: how concentrated filing is at the top, how the technology split divides, and where applications were filed.
KUNMING UNIV OF SCI & TECH is named on 6 of the 182 simple patent families in scope, the highest count of any single listed filer. Below that row, 68 of the 76 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and can overlap when a family names more than one filer, so these counts describe single rows, not combined totals.
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 62.6% of the 182 families, G06F (electric digital data processing) on 56.0%, G06K (data recognition & presentation) on 26.9% and G06V (image/video recognition) on 24.2%. Because one family can carry several IPC subclasses, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive groupings.
At the point this data was retrieved, 84 of the 211 published records (40%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated out further in this dataset. In-force status reflects a snapshot at retrieval and changes continuously; it is not a measure of a record's quality or value.
Counted by published record, China received 137 of the records in this set, the United States 30, and India 28, with WIPO (PCT), Europe (EPO) and Australia carrying smaller counts. The search returned 9 receiving offices overall. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, no nationality data is attached to filer names in this dataset.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to multi label classification algorithm for structured output patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures here are a starting point for scoping a freedom-to-operate review or a filing strategy discussion, not a conclusion in themselves.
Family counts and abstracts describe what a filing is about, not what its claims cover. Pull the granted claim set for any record close to a planned architecture before drawing conclusions about it.
Search full-text claims in Eureka68 of the 76 listed filers in this set hold 2 or fewer families each, so most activity sits outside the largest row. A wider filer watch list can surface movement that a single-leader view would miss.
Build a filer watchlist in EurekaRecords filed since 2022 are still publishing, so the IPC composition and filer ranking shown here will shift as that window fills in. Re-running the search periodically keeps the picture current.
Set up monitoring in EurekaThis search returns 211 published records, which collapse to 182 simple patent families once documents covering the same invention across countries are de-duplicated. No date limit was applied, so this is every record the search string matches rather than a fixed period. The two counts measure different things, records count publications, families count inventions, so always state which one you are citing.
The listed filers are ranked by simple patent family count, and KUNMING UNIV OF SCI & TECH holds the most at 6 of the 182 families (3.3%). Below that single row, 68 of the 76 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which points to a field spread across many small filers rather than concentrated in a handful. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and one family can name more than one filer, so rows cannot be summed into a combined share.
Within the 182 families in scope, G06N (computing based on AI models) is the most frequent subclass at 62.6%, followed by G06F (electric digital data processing) at 56.0%, G06K (data recognition & presentation) at 26.9% and G06V (image/video recognition) at 24.2%. These shares add up to more than 100% because a single family can be classified under several subclasses at once. The pattern suggests filings in this set sit closer to general AI-model and data-processing claims than to a single narrow technique.
Counted by published record, the largest receiving offices in this set are China with 137 records, the United States with 30, and India with 28, with WIPO (PCT), Europe (EPO) and Australia also appearing in smaller numbers. The search returned 9 receiving offices in total, and these figures are counted per record rather than per family, so one invention filed in multiple jurisdictions is counted once at each office. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, the dataset carries no nationality information for filers.
US8805845B1, assigned to Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC and filed 2014-08-12, describes a framework that applies weak classifiers to find seed labels, expands them using label correlation data, and clusters a resulting label graph. It is simply the first record returned under this database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, novelty or influence, so it should not be read as foundational or representative of the field. Establishing what it actually covers requires reading its granted claims directly, which an abstract and a family count cannot substitute for.
Go past this page: query the whole multi label classification algorithm for structured output 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-label classification" OR "multi label classification") AND (label OR classifier) AND (structured OR correlation))
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 (G06N) carries 62.6% 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 211 records and 182 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 (24 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 76 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 76 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 2026-10-22.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (84 of 211). 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