https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/nand-flash-program-verify-algorithm-for-threshold-voltage-control-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Semiconductors & Microelectronics

NAND Flash Program Verify Patents: Threshold Voltage Control Filings

104 patent families on NAND program-verify threshold voltage control, led by Micron with 31.7% of families and a long tail of smaller filers.

296
Published Records
104
Simple Patent Families
32%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
59%
In Force at Cut-off

296 published records collapse into 104 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC is named on 33 of the 104 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 In force = 175 of 296 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 104 simple patent families and 296 published records sit in scope for this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • Micron Technology Inc is named on 33 of the 104 families, a 31.7% share, while 12 of the 19 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • G11C, the static and digital memories subclass, appears on 97.1% of the 104 families, the only IPC subclass this dataset supports describing in detail.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This landscape covers 104 simple patent families and 296 published records matching a search string built around NAND program-verify algorithms used for threshold voltage control, including program-and-verify sequences and Vth distribution management. No date limit was applied to the query, so the set spans every matching record the search string returns regardless of filing year. At the retrieval date, 175 of the 296 records (59%) were granted and still in force.

The filer list returned 19 organisations, counted in families, with the data endpoint capped at a maximum of 100 entities overall. Filings held by named individuals are excluded from that list but remain inside every total and share quoted on this page.

Families vs. records in scope
  1. MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC33
  2. SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES LLC25
  3. INTEL NDTM US LLC10
  4. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD9
  5. KIOXIA CORP5
  6. KK TOSHIBA5
  7. SK HYNIX INC4
  8. APLUS FLASH TECHNOLOGY INC2
  9. INTEL CORP2
  10. MACRONIX INTERNATIONAL CO LTD2

Counted over all 296 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 230 records from 2007 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. 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 start with the same name (SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES LLC, SANDISK CORP). 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (21 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 19 of the 19 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 19 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 NAND Flash Program Verify Algorithm for Threshold Voltage Control Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

The two charts below use different denominators: the filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, while the IPC composition is read against the 104 simple patent families.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (230 of 296 published records)

Records run from 35 in 2007 up to a peak of 38 in 2008, trailing off to 0 by 2026. The window from 2022 onward is still filling in: publication lag of up to 18-30 months means the most recent years understate how many records will eventually appear, so no decline should be read into that stretch.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (230 of 296 published records)0102030403520073820092011201320152017201920212023202502022 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. This chart covers 2007-2026 (230 records); the 296 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition (share of 104 families)

G11C, covering static and digital memories, appears on 97.1% of the 104 families in scope, the highest share of any subclass returned by this search. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, subclass shares add up to more than 100% and are not a partition of the dataset.

IPC subclass composition (share of 104 families)G11C · Static & digital memories10197.1%G06F · Electric digital data processi…109.6%H10B · Memory device manufacture65.8%H01L · Semiconductor devices32.9%H10D · Semiconductor devices (general)21.9%H10W21.9%

Shares are the percentage of the 104 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 NAND Flash Program Verify Algorithm for Threshold Voltage Control Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on NAND Flash Program Verify Algorithm for Threshold Voltage Control Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about nand flash program verify algorithm for threshold voltage control patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example filing

One record from the result set

As filed
US20220208288A12022-06-30

Memory devices with dynamic program verify levels

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.

The abstract describes memory devices with an array of memory cells and a controller that senses a first threshold voltage of a selected cell. Depending on where that sensed voltage falls relative to a first pre-program verify level and a first program verify level, the controller biases the cell for SSPC programming, with the first pre-program and program verify levels each set below their respective final levels.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, novelty or relevance. Nothing about its position in the result set should be read as a signal about its importance to the field.

US20220208288A1, patent drawing 1US20220208288A1, patent drawing 2
View US20220208288A1

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 NAND Flash Program Verify Algorithm for Threshold Voltage Control Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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 filer and classification counts show

These figures describe counts returned by the search, not a judgement of quality, scope or strategy.

Largest filer
31.7%
share of 104 families

Micron Technology Inc named on 33 of 104 families

Micron Technology Inc is named on 33 of the 104 simple patent families in scope, a 31.7% share. This is a count of named families only; it does not establish claim scope, validity or enforceability of any individual filing.

Single-row figure, not summed with any other filer
Long tail
12 of 19
listed filers

Most listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

12 of the 19 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The remaining listed rows, including several with higher counts, account for the rest of the spread across this moderate-sized pool.

Counted in simple patent families
Technology concentration
97.1%
of 104 families

G11C appears on 97.1% of families

The IPC subclass G11C, static and digital memories, is attached to 101 of the 104 simple patent families in scope (97.1%). Families can carry more than one IPC class, so this share is not a partition against the other subclasses the search returned.

Share counted against all 104 families, not against record count
Legal status
59%
of 296 records

175 of 296 records in force at retrieval

At the 2026-10-27 retrieval date, 175 of the 296 published records (59%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records are a mix of statuses not broken out individually here, and this figure reflects a snapshot rather than a stable rate.

Legal status at retrieval date, not a success rate
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 nand flash program verify algorithm for threshold voltage control 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 NAND Flash Program Verify Algorithm for Threshold Voltage Control Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Working with this dataset further

The counts on this page describe what the search string returned. Reading individual claim sets or tracking a specific filer requires going beyond aggregate figures.

Read individual claim sets

Family and IPC counts cannot establish what any granted claim actually requires. Pulling the claim set for a specific filing is the only way to assess its scope.

Explore in Patsnap Eureka

Track filings by a specific organisation

The 19 listed filers are the organisations this search surfaced, not a complete registry. Monitoring one filer's activity over time needs a dedicated watch rather than a single snapshot.

Explore in Patsnap 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 NAND Flash Program Verify Algorithm for Threshold Voltage Control Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Questions practitioners ask about this landscape

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for NAND Flash Program Verify Algorithm for Threshold Voltage Control Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research NAND Flash Program Verify Algorithm for Threshold Voltage Control Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole nand flash program verify algorithm for threshold voltage control 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:(NAND AND ("program verify" OR "program and verify") AND ("threshold voltage" OR "Vth distribution"))

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 (G11C) carries 97.1% 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 296 records and 104 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 (21 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 19 of the 19 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 19 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 2026-10-27.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (175 of 296). 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.