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 →9 patent families and 19 published records cover kernel-bypass and zero-copy network interface card stacks, led by a single two-family filer.
19 published records collapse into 9 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 8 of 19 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This dataset gathers records matching "kernel bypass" OR "zero-copy" together with "network interface card" and communication in the title, abstract or claims. It returns 9 simple patent families spanning 19 published records, filed across five receiving offices with the United States carrying the most (12 records).
Nine families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, treat this page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a map of who is active in kernel-bypass or zero-copy NIC stacks.
Counted over all 19 published records, including filings from before 2017; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 14 records from 2017 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (1 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 8 of the 8 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Two views of the same 9 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Records run from 2017 (2 records) to 2026 (1 record), with a peak of 4 records in 2019. Years from 2022 onward are shaded because publication lag means recent filings are still arriving; a dip there reflects incomplete data, not reduced 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 2017-2026 (14 records); the 19 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on all 9 families in scope, and H04L (Digital information transmission) appears on 7 of 9 (77.8%). Families can carry both classes, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 9 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 network interface card kernel bypass communication stack patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaUS20260019477A1, filed by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, describes replacing the copy of data from shared memory into packet buffers with a reference-based write, removing a data copy step inside a network protocol stack's transmit path without requiring changes on the application side.This is the first record returned by the search under default ordering, not a ranking by citations, breadth or date.


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 drawn directly from the result set, each with the unit it is counted in.
The search returns 9 simple patent families (one per invention) spread across 19 published records (one per publication). The gap reflects the same inventions appearing in more than one jurisdiction; it is not two separate pools.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC is named on 2 of the 9 families in scope, a 22.2% share. The remaining listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each; filer rows are not summed here because one family can name more than one filer.
8 of the 19 published records were granted and still in force when the data was pulled. The remainder cover a mix of statuses not broken out here, so this figure describes legal status at one point in time, not a success rate.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on all 9 families in scope; H04L (Digital information transmission) appears on 7 of 9 (77.8%). Because a family can carry multiple IPC classes, these two shares add to more than 100% of the family total.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to network interface card kernel bypass communication stack patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports counts from one search string. Narrowing or widening the query, or reading granted claims directly, will change what it shows.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Pull the full claim set for any record before drawing a freedom-to-operate conclusion.
Open Patsnap EurekaA 9-family pool this size is sensitive to the exact search string. Variants on "kernel bypass", "zero-copy" and adjacent terms like RDMA or DPDK may surface a different set of records.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaThis search returns 9 simple patent families, consolidated from 19 published records across five receiving offices. The families are de-duplicated across countries, so 9 is the invention-level count, while 19 reflects every publication, including duplicates filed in multiple jurisdictions. This is the result of one search string with no date limit, so it should be read as a sample rather than an exhaustive count of everything filed in this space.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC is named on 2 of the 9 families in scope, the highest count among the 8 organisations the search returned. Several other filers, including Huawei Cloud Computing Technologies, Alacritech, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University, hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows are not summed in this dataset because a single family can name more than one filer, and the list excludes filings held by named individuals even though those are still counted in the totals.
In this dataset, zero-copy generally refers to transmit or receive paths that avoid duplicating packet data as it moves through a network protocol stack, often by passing references to shared memory instead of copying the data itself. The example record in this set, US20260019477A1, describes exactly this approach for a transmit path. What any specific patent's claims actually require has to be read from the granted claim set, not inferred from the abstract or the general technique name.
No single search string captures a complete landscape, and this one returns only 9 families, which is a small pool by any measure. The filer list is capped at the entities the search engine returned and the data endpoint used here returns at most 100 entities, so some filers may be missing entirely. Treat this page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a definitive map of every organisation working on kernel bypass or zero-copy NIC stacks.
8 of the 19 published records were granted and still in force at the time the data was retrieved on 2026-10-16. The remaining records fall into a mix of statuses, such as pending, withdrawn, or lapsed, that are not broken out individually in this dataset. Because legal status changes continuously, this 42% figure describes a single point in time and should not be read as a success or survival rate for the field.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on all 9 families in scope, and H04L (Digital information transmission) appears on 7 of the 9 families, a 77.8% share. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC classification, these two shares add up to more than 100% of the family total rather than partitioning it. Other classes appear in the underlying data but at low enough shares that they are not detailed here.
Go past this page: query the whole network interface card kernel bypass communication stack 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:(("kernel bypass" OR "zero-copy") AND "network interface card" AND communication)
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 100.0% 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 9 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 (1 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 8 of the 8 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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 2026-10-16.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (8 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.
This page