https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/network-interface-card-kernel-bypass-communication-stack-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-16 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · High-Performance Computing

Network Interface Card Kernel Bypass Communication Stack Patents

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
9
Simple Patent Families
42%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

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 In force = 8 of 19 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 9 simple patent families and 19 published records make up the entire result set returned for this search.
  • Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC is named on 2 of the 9 families (22.2%), the highest single-row share in the listed filers.
  • 8 of 19 records were granted and still in force at retrieval (42%).
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

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.

Records by receiving office
  1. MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC2
  2. HUAWEI CLOUD COMPUTING TECHNOLOGIES CO LTD1
  3. ALACRITECH INC1
  4. SHANGHAI JIAOTONG UNIV1
  5. KASENNA1
  6. BEIJING UNIV OF POSTS & TELECOMM1
  7. MARVELL ASIA PTE LTD1
  8. Shanghai Electric (Group) Corporation1

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.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Network Interface Card Kernel Bypass Communication Stack Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. 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
Data

Filing activity and technology split

Two views of the same 9 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (14 of 19 published records)

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.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (14 of 19 published records)0123422017201842019202020212022202320242025120262022 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 2017-2026 (14 records); the 19 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass coverage (share of 9 simple patent families)

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%.

IPC subclass coverage (share of 9 simple patent families)G06F · Electric digital data processi…9100.0%H04L · Digital information transmissi…777.8%G06T · Image data processing & genera…111.1%

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%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Network Interface Card Kernel Bypass Communication Stack Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Network Interface Card Kernel Bypass Communication Stack Patent Landscape with Eureka

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 Eureka
Record in focus

One record from the result set

Example record
US20260019477A12026-01-15

Method for intra-stack zero-copy transmit path in shared-memory-based communication mode

SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY

US20260019477A1, 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.

US20260019477A1, patent drawing 1US20260019477A1, patent drawing 2
View 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 Network Interface Card Kernel Bypass Communication Stack Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. 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 →
Insights

What the figures show

Three figures drawn directly from the result set, each with the unit it is counted in.

Scale
9 families / 19 records
families vs. published records

Two different counts for the same search

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.

Counted at retrieval, 2026-10-16
Largest filer
2 of 9 families
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC

The highest single-row share in the listed filers

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 organisations listed, ordered by family count
Legal status
8 of 19
records granted and in force

42% of records were in force at retrieval

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.

Status as of 2026-10-16
Technology split
100% / 77.8%
G06F / H04L share of families

G06F and H04L cover the two largest classification shares

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.

Share of 9 simple patent families
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 network interface card kernel bypass communication stack 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 Network Interface Card Kernel Bypass Communication Stack Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this

This page reports counts from one search string. Narrowing or widening the query, or reading granted claims directly, will change what it shows.

Read the claims, not the counts

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 Eureka

Re-run with adjacent terms

A 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 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 Network Interface Card Kernel Bypass Communication Stack Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Network Interface Card Kernel Bypass Communication Stack Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Network Interface Card Kernel Bypass Communication Stack Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

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.

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:(("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.