https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/open-source-git-commit-authorship-attribution-tracking-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Software & Distributed Systems

Open Source Git Commit Authorship Attribution Tracking Patents

A small set of 3 patent families covers open-source git commit authorship attribution tracking, with filings split across three listed organisations.

6
Published Records
3
Simple Patent Families
67%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

6 published records collapse into 3 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 4 of 6 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 3 filers share the top count. NIMMALA KARUNAKAR, YANGZHOU UNIV and SYNOPSYS INC are each named on 1 of the 3 simple patent families in scope, so no single filer holds the most.
  • The whole dataset is 3 families. Across those, 6 published records exist, with 4 of the 6 granted and still in force at retrieval.
  • Filings split across three offices. The 6 published records were filed at the United States (4), India (1) and WIPO under the PCT (1).
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This page tracks records matching a search string built around open source or open-source combined with commit authorship, git blame or authorship, and attribution or tracking. The search carries no date limit, so the result set is whatever currently publishes against those terms, not a fixed historical window.

The result is a small pool: 3 simple patent families and 6 published records. At this size, the page is best read as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the field, individual documents, not statistical patterns, carry the weight here.

Scope at a glance
  1. NIMMALA KARUNAKAR1
  2. YANGZHOU UNIV1
  3. SYNOPSYS INC1

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; 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 3 of the 3 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 3 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 Open Source Git Commit Authorship Attribution Tracking Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 3 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they sit in.

Filing trend by earliest filing year

Published records run from a 2017 peak of 3 down to 0 in 2026. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in because of publication lag, so this window should not be read as a decline, it counts documents as they publish, not inventions as they occur.

Filing trend by earliest filing year012233201720182019202020212022202320242025020262022 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.

Technology composition

G06F, G06N, G06Q and H04L each cover 1 of the 3 simple patent families (33.3% apiece). Because a single family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not a partition of the dataset.

Technology compositionG06F · Electric digital data processi…133.3%G06N · Computing based on AI models133.3%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…133.3%H04L · Digital information transmissi…133.3%

Shares are the percentage of the 3 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 Open Source Git Commit Authorship Attribution Tracking Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Open Source Git Commit Authorship Attribution Tracking Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about open source git commit authorship attribution tracking patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in Focus

A record from the result set

First record returned
US11943369B22024-03-26

Technology validation and ownership

BLACK DUCK SOFTWARE, INC.

The abstract describes a method that receives signatures representing proprietary files from a vendor, generated without disclosing the files themselves, validates those signatures as the vendor's proprietary code, and adds them to a global database used to compare the vendor's data against other technology data and trigger actions based on the comparison result.US11943369B2, assigned to Black Duck Software, Inc., published 2024-03-26. This is the first record the database returns under its default order, not the most cited or most representative document in the set.

US11943369B2, patent drawing 1US11943369B2, 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 Open Source Git Commit Authorship Attribution Tracking Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 →
Key Figures

What the numbers show

Four figures drawn directly from the result set, each counted in the unit stated.

Scope
3 families / 6 records
simple patent families / published records

Two different counts for the same topic

The search returns 3 simple patent families, de-duplicated across countries, and 6 published records counted one per publication. Both figures describe the same set of inventions, counted differently, and neither should be read as the other.

Retrieved 2026-10-20
Filers
1 family each
top count among 3 listed filers

Three filers tie at the top

NIMMALA KARUNAKAR, YANGZHOU UNIV and SYNOPSYS INC are each named on 1 of the 3 simple patent families. Filer rows are not mutually exclusive partitions of the dataset, so these counts cannot be added into a combined share.

Filer list, organisations only
Legal status
3 of 3
records granted and in force

Status at the retrieval date

4 of the 6 published records (67%) were granted and in force when the data was pulled. The remaining records fall into categories, pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, that are not broken out individually here.

Status as of 2026-10-20
Filing offices
3 offices
receiving offices across 6 records

Where the records were filed

The 6 published records were filed at the United States (4), India (1) and WIPO under the PCT (1). This describes where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.

Receiving-office breakdown, full set
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 open source git commit authorship attribution tracking 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 Open Source Git Commit Authorship Attribution Tracking Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Where to take this from here

This page surfaces the documents a single search string returns. Narrowing or broadening that string, or reading the granted claims directly, is the next step for any of these threads.

Read the granted claims

A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Anyone assessing freedom to operate against one of these three families needs the granted claim set itself.

Open Patsnap Eureka

Run a wider search

At 3 families, adjacent terms for commit metadata, blame tooling or code-provenance tracking may surface records this string did not catch.

Explore related searches 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 Open Source Git Commit Authorship Attribution Tracking Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 Open Source Git Commit Authorship Attribution Tracking Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Open Source Git Commit Authorship Attribution Tracking Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole open source git commit authorship attribution tracking 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:(("open source" OR "open-source") AND ("commit authorship" OR "git blame" OR authorship) AND (attribution OR tracking))

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 6 records and 3 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. 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 3 of the 3 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 3 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 2026-10-20.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (4 of 6). 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.