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 small set of 8 patent families on coordinated delta-robot picker arrays, spanning 13 records and 5 filing offices, with no single filer out front.
13 published records collapse into 8 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 10 of 13 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports results for a search targeting delta robots, parallel robot pickers and robotic picker arrays used in coordinated sorting of recyclables or general objects. The search string requires both the robot terminology and a coordination term, plus a sorting or recyclable term, which narrows the match considerably. The result is 8 simple patent families drawn from 13 published records, filed across offices in China, the United States, Canada, India and South Korea.
This is a small pool: 8 families is not enough to support claims about concentration, growth or white space. Treat this page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the field.
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 share the name GRID (STATE GRID CHONGQING ELECTRIC POWER CO ELECTRIC POWER RES INST, STATE GRID CORPORATION OF CHINA). 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; 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.
Two views of the same 8 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Records run from 2014 through 2026, with a peak of 5 records in 2019. Years from 2022 onward are shaded because publication lag means recent filings are still arriving; this stretch undercounts what will eventually appear, so no trend judgement is drawn from it.
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.
B25J (Manipulators & robots) appears on 5 of the 8 families, 62.5%. B65B (Packaging & wrapping) and G06T (Image data processing & generation) each appear on 2 families, 25.0%. A family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 8 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-robot delta picker array coordinated sorting system patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a pharmaceutical order filling system with an order processing device, an automated dispensing device, pallets for transporting containers, and a container sorting device. The sorting device includes a pallet unloading area, an exception conveyor, a standard order conveyor, and a container manipulation device with a gripper assembly for moving containers.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in scope. It should not be read as typical of the other 7 families.


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, reported as counted, with their limits stated alongside each one.
The search returns 8 simple patent families, de-duplicated across countries, built from 13 published records, one per publication. The two numbers measure different things and are not interchangeable.
Every one of the 13 listed filer rows holds exactly 1 simple patent family. One row (STATE GRID CORPORATION OF CHINA) shares its first word with another listed row, but the two are listed separately and are not summed here.
B25J (Manipulators & robots) appears on 5 of the 8 families in scope. B65B (Packaging & wrapping) and G06T (Image data processing & generation) each appear on 2 families. A family can carry multiple classes, so shares add above 100%.
10 of the 13 published records (77%) were granted and in force at the 2026-10-21 retrieval date. The remainder are not broken out by status, and in-force status changes continuously, so this figure is not a measure of quality or a success rate.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to multi-robot delta picker array coordinated sorting system patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a starting point built from one search string. Refining it further depends on what the reader needs to know next.
A term combination this specific (delta robot or picker array, plus coordination, plus sorting or recyclable) can miss adjacent filings that use different phrasing for the same mechanism.
Refine the search in EurekaFamily counts and abstracts describe what a filing is about, not what its claims cover. Checking a specific design against any of these 8 families means reading the granted claim set directly.
Open claim text in EurekaRecords from 2022 onward are still arriving due to publication lag. Revisiting this search periodically will surface filings not yet visible today.
Set up monitoring in EurekaThis search returns 8 simple patent families, built from 13 published records across 5 receiving offices (China, United States, Canada, India, South Korea). A family is one invention counted once regardless of how many countries it was filed in, while a record is counted once per publication, so the two figures are not interchangeable. The search string requires robot picker terminology plus a coordination term plus a sorting or recyclable term, which narrows the result considerably and may exclude filings that describe the same mechanism in different words.
The listed filers in this dataset are organisations only; individually named inventors were removed from the list but remain in every total. All 13 listed rows hold exactly 1 simple patent family each, so there is no single row with a higher count than the rest. One name, STATE GRID CORPORATION OF CHINA, shares its first word with another listed row, but the two rows are kept separate and are never summed, because one family can name more than one filer and adding rows would double-count.
No growth rate is reported on this page. The filing trend, counted in published records, runs from 2014 through 2026 with a peak of 5 records in 2019, but records from 2022 onward are still filling in due to publication lag of up to roughly 30 months for some filing routes. With only 8 families in total, year-to-year movement in a set this size is better read as noise than as a trend.
The abstract for US20190367196A1 describes a pharmaceutical order filling system with an order processing device, a dispensing device, pallets, and a container sorting device that includes an exception conveyor, a standard order conveyor and a gripper-equipped container manipulation device. This is the abstract only, not the granted claim set, and an abstract cannot establish what the claims actually require or how far they reach. It was also the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not selected for being the most cited or the broadest filing in the set.
Of the 9 IPC subclasses present across these 8 families, B25J (Manipulators & robots) appears most, on 5 families (62.5%). B65B (Packaging & wrapping) and G06T (Image data processing & generation) each appear on 2 families (25.0%). Because a single family can carry multiple IPC subclasses, these shares add up to more than 100%, and the smaller subclasses in the dataset are not detailed here because an eight-family pool cannot reliably separate a genuine branch from a search-term false match.
No. This page reports family and record counts, IPC classifications and abstracts, none of which establish claim scope. Determining whether a specific design is clear of any of these 8 families requires reading the granted claims and prosecution history of the relevant document directly, ideally with counsel, and this page is not a substitute for that step.
Go past this page: query the whole multi-robot delta picker array coordinated sorting system 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:(("delta robot" OR "parallel robot picker" OR "robotic picker array") AND coordinat* AND (sorting OR recyclable))
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 (B25J) carries 62.5% 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 13 records and 8 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. 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 2026-10-21.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (10 of 13). 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