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 →A small set of 4 patent families on open-source dependency graph pruning, spanning three filers and five IPC subclasses.
7 published records collapse into 4 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 4 of 7 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page covers a search for records combining open source dependency graphs or dependency trees with pruning or optimization terminology. The search string sets no date limit, so the records in scope span whatever filing dates the matching documents happen to carry, with no particular start year implied. The dataset returns 7 published records that de-duplicate down to 4 simple patent families, with legal status recorded for all of them at retrieval.
This is a small pool: 4 families and 7 records in total. The figures below describe exactly what this search returned, not a map of the broader field, and are a starting point for a deeper search rather than a conclusion about who is active in dependency graph pruning.
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 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Three figures matter here: how few filers appear, how thin the filing trend is, and how the IPC classes overlap rather than partition the dataset.
The series runs from a peak of 2 published records, reached in both 2019 and 2020, down to 1 in 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the shaded recent years understate their eventual counts and should not be read as a decline.
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.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) and G06N (Computing based on AI models) each cover 3 of the 3 families (75.0%), with G06Q, G10L and H04L each on 1 family (25.0%). Because a single family can carry more than one class, these shares add up to over 100% and should be read one class at a time.
Shares are the percentage of the 4 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 open source package dependency graph pruning optimization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a method and system for estimating per-application migration pricing and an application move group sequence for cloud migration, using optimization techniques and neural networks to forecast both the cost of moving an application to a cloud and an optimized order for moving groups of applications.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citation count, filing date or relevance. It is shown to illustrate what one matching document in this dataset actually claims.


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 →Each card below reports one figure from the dataset as counted, with the unit and denominator stated alongside it.
DAYANANDA SAGAR UNIV is named on 1 of the 4 simple patent families in scope (25.0%). Two further filers, TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD and ELECTRIC POWER RES INST CHINA SOUTHERN POWER GRID CO LTD, are each also named on 1 family, so all three sit at the same count. Filer rows are not summed on this page because one family can name more than one filer.
All 3 of the 3 listed filers are named on 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This is the full spread of the listed, organisation-only rows; individual inventors are counted inside the totals but excluded from this list.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) and G06N (Computing based on AI models) each appear on 3 of the 3 simple patent families (75.0%). Because classes can co-occur on the same family, these two shares cannot be added to read a combined coverage figure.
4 of the 7 published records (57%) were granted and in force at the 2026-10-20 retrieval date. The remaining records fall into other statuses that are not broken out individually on this page, so no further split can be stated.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to open source package dependency graph pruning optimization patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This dataset is a narrow slice built from one search string. Widening or re-running the query inside Eureka can test how much of what follows holds up against adjacent terms and classifications.
Family counts and abstracts describe what a filing is about, not what its claims cover. Read the granted claim set of any record of interest before drawing conclusions about scope.
Open Eureka →A 4-family pool is sensitive to the exact wording of the search string. Broadening or adjusting the terms can surface related filings this query did not catch.
Explore search options →Published records in this set were filed through India, the United States and China. Checking filing office alongside family data can clarify where protection was actually sought.
View filing details →This search returns 7 published records that de-duplicate to 4 simple patent families. Records count each publication separately, including multiple filings of the same invention in different countries, while families count the underlying invention once. Because the search string carries no date limit, these figures represent everything the string matched regardless of filing year, not a count bounded to any particular period.
The dataset lists 3 organisations, all tied at the top with 1 simple patent family each: DAYANANDA SAGAR UNIV, TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD, and ELECTRIC POWER RES INST CHINA SOUTHERN POWER GRID CO LTD. Individual inventors matched by the same search are included in the overall totals but excluded from this organisation-only list. With only 4 families in scope and three filers tied at the same count, no single entity can be described as ahead of the others here.
Classification shows G06F (Electric digital data processing) and G06N (Computing based on AI models) each on 3 of the 3 families (75.0%), with G06Q, G10L and H04L each on 1 family (25.0%). Because a single family can carry several IPC classes, these shares overlap and add to more than 100% when read together. The classes point to data-processing and AI-model computation themes recurring across the small set, rather than a single dominant category.
A growth rate cannot be read from this dataset: the filing trend spans too few years with complete data to compute one. The published-record count peaked at 2 in both 2019 and 2020, with later years including unpublished or not-yet-filed documents that are still arriving. Records from 2022 onward are shaded on the trend chart because publication lag of up to 30 months for some filing routes means recent years are undercounted.
Three receiving offices appear across the 7 published records: India with 3, the United States with 3, and China with 1. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based or incorporated; the dataset carries no nationality or headquarters information for any filer. The office counts sum to the record total rather than the family total, since one invention can be filed at more than one office.
Go past this page: query the whole open source package dependency graph pruning optimization 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:(("open source" OR "open-source") AND ("dependency graph" OR "dependency tree") AND (prune* OR pruning OR optimization))
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 75.0% 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 7 records and 4 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 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 7). 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