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 6-family dataset on parallel sorting hardware accelerators: a six-way tie at the top and no single filer ahead.
12 published records collapse into 6 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 7 of 12 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports results for the search string TAC:(("parallel sorting" OR "parallel sort") AND hardware AND accelerat*), which returns 6 simple patent families spanning 12 published records. No date limit was applied, so this is every matching record the search string finds, regardless of filing date. The listed filers include corporate names such as Zhejiang Lab, Exegy Inc, Oracle Int Corp, International Business Machines Corporation, Zillians and Chengdu Sino Microelectronics Tech Co Ltd, each tied at 1 family apiece except for the one row sitting at the stated 16.7% share.
This is a small pool: 6 families is not enough to support conclusions about concentration, growth or white space. Treat this page as a starting point for a search, not a map of the field.
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 6 of the 6 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 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.
Counts below are drawn directly from the search results, split by the unit each figure is counted in, published records or simple patent families.
The trend counts published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated families, so a single invention filed in several offices adds more than one mark. The series runs from 2009, where the count first reaches its peak of 4 records (also reached in 2010), through to 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the recent end of the line understates eventual totals 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) appears on all 6 of the 6 simple patent families in scope, 100%. A further 16.7% of the same 6 families also carry a G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) classification. Because a family can carry more than one class, these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 6 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 parallel sorting algorithm hardware acceleration engine patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a computer processor with a memory unit, a processor cache and a hardware merge sort accelerator. The memory unit stores key values to be sorted; the processor cache obtains tree data indicating those key values; and the hardware merge sort accelerator builds a master tournament tree from the key values, performs a tournament sort to determine a first winning key value, and speculates a second winning key value as the next sequential winner of the sort.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest record in the set. It is shown to illustrate what one filing in this dataset claims, not to represent the dataset as a whole.


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 from this search, reported with the unit and the caveat each one carries.
The search string returns 6 simple patent families from 12 published records, with no filing-date limit applied. The small count limits what can be read from any ranking or trend drawn from it.
Six listed filers (Zhejiang Lab, Exegy Inc, Oracle Int Corp, IBM, Zillians and Chengdu Sino Microelectronics Tech) are each named on 1 of the 6 simple patent families. Filer rows are not summed here because one family can name more than one filer.
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on all 6 of the 6 simple patent families in scope. 16.7% of the same families also carry a G06Q classification; shares add to more than 100% because families can carry multiple classes.
7 of the 12 published records (58%) were granted and in force at the 2026-10-16 retrieval date. This is a snapshot of legal status, not a success rate, and it changes continuously as records move through prosecution or lapse.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to parallel sorting algorithm hardware acceleration engine patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a starting point. Narrower or adjacent searches in Patsnap Eureka can test whether the pattern here holds up.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent covers. Read the granted claim set of any record of interest directly before drawing conclusions about scope.
Open in EurekaA 6-family result from one search string is sensitive to wording. Broadening or varying the query terms in Eureka can surface records this search string does not reach.
Explore related searchesThis specific search string returns 6 simple patent families, built from 12 published records, with no date limit applied. That figure reflects only what matches the exact search terms used here, so a differently worded search could return a different count. Treat this number as the output of one search, not as a census of every patent touching hardware-accelerated parallel sorting.
The listed filers in this dataset are tied: six organisations, including Zhejiang Lab, Exegy Inc, Oracle Int Corp, International Business Machines Corporation, Zillians and Chengdu Sino Microelectronics Tech Co Ltd, are each named on 1 of the 6 simple patent families. No single filer has more families than the others in this list, and the rows cannot be added together because one family can name more than one filer. The underlying filer list also returns organisations only; filings held by named individuals are excluded from the list but remain in the total counts.
G06F covers electric digital data processing, and it appears on all 6 of the 6 simple patent families in this dataset, a 100% share. A smaller share, 16.7% of the same families, also carries a G06Q classification for business, commerce and administrative data processing. Because a single family can carry more than one classification, these two shares add to more than 100% rather than partitioning the dataset.
At the retrieval date of 2026-10-16, 7 of the 12 published records in this dataset (58%) were granted and in force. This is a legal-status snapshot taken on that date, not a measure of how commercially valuable or well-claimed any filing is, and it will change as records continue to prosecute, lapse or expire. The dataset does not break out how many of the remainder are pending, withdrawn or refused, so those categories cannot be reported separately here.
This dataset is too small, at 6 simple patent families, to support any trend, growth-rate or maturity reading, and the page does not report one. The filing-trend chart that counts published records by earliest filing year also understates its most recent years, from 2022 onward, because filings take time to publish after they are filed. Any apparent rise or fall near the present end of that chart reflects publication lag rather than an actual change in filing behaviour.
The published abstract for US20200073633A1, filed by International Business Machines Corporation, describes a processor with a memory unit, a processor cache and a hardware merge sort accelerator that builds a tournament tree from key values, performs a tournament sort, and speculates the next winning key value ahead of time. This describes what the abstract discloses, not what the granted claims require; claim scope has to be read from the claim set and prosecution history directly. This record was returned first under the database's default ordering in this search and is not presented as the most cited, newest or most representative filing in the dataset.
Go past this page: query the whole parallel sorting algorithm hardware acceleration engine 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:(("parallel sorting" OR "parallel sort") AND hardware AND accelerat*)
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 12 records and 6 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 6 of the 6 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 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 (7 of 12). 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