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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/multi-robot-task-allocation-coordination-protocol-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Artificial Intelligence & RoboticsMulti-Robot Task Allocation Coordination Protocol Patents
A 35-family dataset on multi-robot task allocation coordination protocols, spanning filers, IPC mix and filing offices.
38
Published Records
35
Simple Patent Families
32%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction
38 published records collapse into 35 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 12 of 38 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 35 simple patent families and 38 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search.
- No single top filer two entities, Univ of Shanghai for Sci & Tech and Nanjing Univ of Posts & Telecomm, each hold 2 of the 35 families, the highest count in this set.
- China accounts for 23 of 38 records by receiving office, against 13 at India's office and 2 filed via WIPO (PCT).
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page reports a search for records matching multi-robot or multi robot, combined with task allocation or task assignment, and coordination or protocol, across titles, abstracts and claims. No date limit was applied, so the 38 published records and 35 simple patent families returned span whatever filing dates exist in the matched set. The search string sets the boundary of what is captured: records using different terminology for the same idea, or using these terms for an unrelated system, can both fall outside or inside it.
At 35 families, this is a small pool. The figures below describe what the search returned, not a map of the field: absence of a company or a branch here most likely reflects the search terms rather than an absence of filing activity. Treat this page as a starting point for a closer search, not a finished picture.
Records vs. families in scope
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 (22 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 35 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 35 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-Robot Task Allocation Coordination Protocol 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
The Numbers
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 35-family dataset: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)
Records run from 2 in 2018 up to a peak of 11 in 2025, with 2026 at 6 so far. Counts from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the recent years understate eventual totals; this chart is not the full scope of the search, only a recent window of 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.
Technology composition by IPC subclass (share of 35 families)
G06Q carries the highest share at 57.1% of the 35 families, ahead of B25J at 34.3% and G06N at 31.4%. G05B, G05D and G06F each sit between 20% and 23%. A family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 35 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-Robot Task Allocation Coordination Protocol 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-Robot Task Allocation Coordination Protocol Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about multi-robot task allocation coordination protocol patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaFeatured Record
A record from the result set
First record returned
Actor model based architecture for multi robot systems and optimized task scheduling method thereof (WO2019234702A2)
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED
The disclosure describes an actor-model-based multi-robot system in which each physical robot has an associated robot actor running as a single-threaded application. Tasks are assigned dynamically by identifying a suitable physical robot or human operator using a bid-value concept, intended to address task scheduling where human collaboration is involved.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default order, not the most cited or broadest filing. What its 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.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multi-Robot Task Allocation Coordination Protocol 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
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 →Signals
Reading the dataset
Three figures worth sitting with before drawing on this dataset for freedom-to-operate or whitespace work.
Scope
35 families / 38 records
simple patent families / published records
A small, de-duplicated pool
The search returns 38 published records that de-duplicate to 35 simple patent families, with no date limit applied. The gap between the two counts reflects the same invention appearing in more than one publication, not additional inventions.
Counted at retrieval on 2026-10-15
Filer spread
2 of 35 families
largest single-row share
No filer ahead of the rest
Univ of Shanghai for Sci & Tech and Nanjing Univ of Posts & Telecomm each appear on 2 of the 35 families. All 35 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families, and rows cannot be summed because one family can name more than one filer.
Filer list, 35 entities returned
Legal status
12 of 38
records granted and in force
32% in force at retrieval
12 of the 38 published records were granted and still in force as of the retrieval date; the remainder sit in pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or indeterminate states that are not broken out further. This is a snapshot of status at one date, not a measure of filing quality.
Status as of 2026-10-15
Filing offices
23 / 13 / 2
records by receiving office: China / India / WIPO
Three receiving offices in the record set
Of the 38 published records, 23 were filed at the China office, 13 at the India office and 2 via WIPO (PCT). These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
All offices returned by the search
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-robot task allocation coordination protocol patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multi-Robot Task Allocation Coordination Protocol 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 small dataset
35 families is enough to orient on, not enough to conclude from. These are reasonable next moves.
Widen the search terms
Different terminology for the same coordination mechanisms may sit outside this exact phrase match. Broader synonym sets would change both the record count and the technology mix shown here.
Explore related searches in Eureka →Pull granted claims directly
Family and abstract data cannot establish claim scope. Where a specific filing matters to a project, the granted claim set is the only reliable source for what it covers.
Open full-text claims in Eureka →Track new publications
Filings from 2022 onward are still publishing and will add to the counts shown here. A monitoring search catches additions the static page will not.
Set up monitoring 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-Robot Task Allocation Coordination Protocol 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
FAQ
Common questions
This specific search string returned 38 published records, which de-duplicate to 35 simple patent families, with no date limit applied. That figure is bounded entirely by the search terms used: multi-robot or multi robot, combined with task allocation or task assignment, and coordination or protocol, across title, abstract and claims. A differently worded search on the same topic area would likely return a different count, so this number should be read as one search's result rather than a definitive count of all filings in the area.
No single filer stands ahead of the rest in this dataset: Univ of Shanghai for Sci & Tech and Nanjing Univ of Posts & Telecomm are tied at 2 families each out of 35, the highest count among the 35 listed filers. Every other listed filer holds 2 or fewer families. Because one family can name more than one filer, these rows cannot be added together to produce a combined share, and the list itself covers organisations only, with individual-inventor filings folded into the totals but not shown as rows.
G06Q (business, commerce and admin data processing) carries the highest share at 57.1% of the 35 families, followed by B25J (manipulators and robots) at 34.3% and G06N (AI-model computing) at 31.4%. G05B, G05D and G06F each sit between 20% and 23% of the families. Because a single family can carry several IPC subclasses, these shares sum to more than 100% and should not be read as mutually exclusive categories.
The filing trend, counted in published records by earliest filing year, runs from 2 records in 2018 to a peak of 11 in 2025 and 6 so far in 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still publishing, since applications typically take 18 to 30 months to appear after filing, so the most recent years understate their eventual totals. With counts this small, year-to-year movement should not be read as an acceleration or a slowdown.
The dataset shows three receiving offices across the 38 published records: 23 filed at the China office, 13 at the India office, and 2 filed via WIPO under the PCT. This describes where the applications were filed, not where any applicant or inventor is based, and no nationality information is available for any filer in this dataset.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multi-Robot Task Allocation Coordination Protocol 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-Robot Task Allocation Coordination Protocol Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole multi-robot task allocation coordination protocol patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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-robot" OR "multi robot") AND ("task allocation" OR "task assignment") AND (coordination OR protocol))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 38 records and 35 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 (22 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 35 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 35 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 (12 of 38). 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.