https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/multigrid-solver-parallel-computation-acceleration-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · High-Performance Computing

Multigrid Solver Parallel Computation Acceleration Patents

13 patent families on multigrid solver acceleration show a tied top spot and a long tail of single filers, not one leader.

19
Published Records
13
Simple Patent Families
16%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction

19 published records collapse into 13 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 3 of 19 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 15 filers tie at the top of this dataset each holding exactly 1 of the 13 simple patent families in scope, so no single organisation holds the most.
  • The pool is small 13 simple patent families and 19 published records in total, across four receiving offices.
  • G06F carries most of the technical content it appears on 11 of the 13 families (84.6%), with G06T on 3 (23.1%).
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This page reports every record returned by a search for multigrid or multi-grid solvers combined with parallel or accelerat* terms, with no date limit applied. The result set holds 13 simple patent families and 19 published records, filed through four receiving offices: China, the United States, WIPO (PCT), and India.

13 families is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a further search, not as a map of the field, a dataset this size cannot support conclusions about concentration, trend, or white space, and the absence of a subclass or a filer here most likely reflects the search terms rather than the absence of filing activity.

Records and families in scope
  1. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH1
  2. NAT UNIV OF DEFENSE TECH1
  3. CHINA UNIV OF PETROLEUM (BEIJING)1
  4. MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH1
  5. NINGBO INST OF DALIAN UNIV OF TECH1
  6. NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL UNIV1
  7. BROWN UNIVERSITY1
  8. MANGALAM COLLEGE OF ENG1
  9. QINGDAO NAT LAB FOR MARINE SCI & TECH DEV CENT1
  10. OCEAN UNIV OF CHINA1

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 (7 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 15 of the 15 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 15 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 Multigrid Solver Parallel Computation Acceleration 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 volume and technology split

Figures below are drawn directly from the search results: one trend line counted in published records, and one technology split counted in simple patent families.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

The earliest year on record is 2008 (2 records) and the series runs through 2026 (3 records), with a peak so far of 4 records in 2014. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the most recent years understate eventual counts; this is a count of published documents, not of distinct inventions, since one invention can publish more than once.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)0123422008201020124201420162018202020222024320262022 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 coverage (share of 13 simple patent families)

G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 11 of the 13 families (84.6%), and G06T (Image data processing & generation) appears on 3 (23.1%). Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not a partition of the dataset.

IPC subclass coverage (share of 13 simple patent families)G06F · Electric digital data processi…1184.6%G06T · Image data processing & genera…323.1%A61B · Diagnosis & surgery17.7%G01C · Distance, navigation & gyrosco…17.7%G05B · Control & regulating systems17.7%G06N · Computing based on AI models17.7%G16C · Computational chemistry17.7%

Shares are the percentage of the 13 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 Multigrid Solver Parallel Computation Acceleration 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 Multigrid Solver Parallel Computation Acceleration Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about multigrid solver parallel computation acceleration patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example Record

A record from the result set

First record returned
US20190035120A12019-01-31

Method And System For Automated Generation Of Constrained Curves In Computer Graphics

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

The abstract describes a method that receives two control points in a two-dimensional plane, takes at least one constraint on one of those points, and generates a spline connecting them by using a multigrid solver to produce a set of parameter points along the curve.Filed by Robert Bosch GmbH, published as US20190035120A1 on 2019-01-31. This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not a ranking by citation, novelty or scope.

US20190035120A1, patent drawing 1US20190035120A1, 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 Multigrid Solver Parallel Computation Acceleration 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 →
Patterns In The Data

What the figures show

Three figures worth reading carefully before drawing conclusions from this dataset.

Filer concentration
15 filers on 1 family each
simple patent families

A tied top count, not a single leader

15 of the 15 listed filers each hold exactly 1 of the 13 simple patent families in scope, including Robert Bosch GmbH, National University of Defense Technology, and others. No row in the listed filers holds more than one family, so there is no single largest filer here.

Filer list, simple patent families
Technology split
84.6% carry G06F
share of 13 families

G06F appears on most families; shares overlap

G06F (Electric digital data processing) is classified on 11 of the 13 families (84.6%) and G06T (Image data processing & generation) on 3 (23.1%). A family can carry both classes, so these two figures cannot be added together to describe coverage.

IPC subclass tagging, simple patent families
Legal status
3 of 19 in force
published records at retrieval

16% of records were granted and in force at retrieval

3 of the 19 published records (16%) were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remaining records are in other states that this page does not break out further, and legal status changes continuously after retrieval.

Legal status, published records
Filing geography
4 receiving offices
published records

Filings split across four offices

The 19 published records were filed through four receiving offices: China (7), the United States (6), WIPO under the PCT (4), and India (2). This describes where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.

Receiving office, published records
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 multigrid solver parallel computation acceleration 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 Multigrid Solver Parallel Computation Acceleration 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

Where to take this further

This page is a starting point built from one search string. The next steps depend on what you need to check.

Read the granted claims directly

A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. If a specific filing matters to a decision, pull its granted claim set and prosecution history rather than reasoning from the abstract shown here.

Open the full record in Eureka →

Widen or adjust the search string

With only 13 families in scope, adjacent terminology could be missing from this result set entirely. Try alternate phrasings and classification-based searches before concluding a branch is empty.

Refine this search 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 Multigrid Solver Parallel Computation Acceleration 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 about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Multigrid Solver Parallel Computation Acceleration 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 Multigrid Solver Parallel Computation Acceleration Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole multigrid solver parallel computation acceleration 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:((multigrid OR "multi-grid") AND solver AND (parallel OR accelerat*))

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 (G06F) carries 84.6% 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 19 records and 13 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 (7 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 15 of the 15 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 15 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 (3 of 19). 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.