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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/physically-unclonable-function-memory-based-security-circuit-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Semiconductors & MicroelectronicsPhysically Unclonable Function Memory-Based Security Circuit Patents
Analysis of 526 patent families on PUF memory-based security circuits, covering filer concentration, technology split and filing activity.
1,353
Published Records
526
Simple Patent Families
5%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
56%
In Force at Cut-off
1,353 published records collapse into 526 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. INTEL CORP is named on 24 of the 526 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 757 of 1,353 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 526 simple patent families and 1,353 published records sit inside this search, with 56% of the records (757 of 1,353) granted and still in force at retrieval.
- Intel Corp is named on 24 of the 526 families, a 4.6% share, while 52 of the 98 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
- H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 71.3% of the 526 families, ahead of G06F (electric digital data processing) at 50.8%.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This landscape draws on a search for physically unclonable function (PUF) or PUF-related memory circuits used for security or authentication. The search string matches on title, abstract and claims, returning 526 simple patent families and 1,353 published records. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever filing dates the matching records carry; the filing-trend chart below shows a recent window only, not the full history.
A simple patent family groups all the national and regional filings for one invention into a single count, while a published record counts each publication separately, the same invention filed in several countries produces several records. Both units appear on this page and are never interchangeable.
Records and families in scope
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. 3 rows in this table share the name ELECTRONICS (ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM RES INST, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD, RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORP). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (2 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 30 of the 98 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 98 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 Physically Unclonable Function Memory-Based Security Circuit Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data
Filing activity and technology composition
The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing-trend series counted in published records, and an IPC technology split counted in simple patent families.
Filing trend by earliest filing year
Published records by earliest filing year run from 8 in 2007 to a peak of 140 in 2020, reaching 48 in 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as they work through publication, so the most recent years understate 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. This chart covers 2007-2026 (1,332 records); the 1,353 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC technology split
H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 71.3% of the 526 families in scope, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 50.8%. A family can carry both classes and others besides, so these shares add up to more than 100%; the chart lists the largest of 65 subclasses that matched this search.
Shares are the percentage of the 526 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 Physically Unclonable Function Memory-Based Security Circuit Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Physically Unclonable Function Memory-Based Security Circuit Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about physically unclonable function memory-based security circuit patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaExample record
A record from the result set
From the dataset
Physically unclonable function (PUF) circuits employing multiple PUF memories to decouple a PUF challenge input from a PUF response output for enhanced security
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
Physically unclonable function (PUF) circuits employing multiple PUF memories to decouple a PUF challenge input from a PUF response output for enhanced security. The PUF circuit includes a PUF challenge memory and a PUF response memory. In response to a read operation, the PUF challenge memory uses a received PUF challenge input data word to address PUF challenge memory arrays therein to generate a plurality of intermediate PUF challenge output data words. The PUF response memory is configured to generate a second, final PUF response output data word in response to intermediate PUF challenge output data words, making the challenge-response behaviour harder to learn from the outside.This is the first record returned under the database default order, not a ranking by citations or importance. Its filed abstract describes a two-memory PUF architecture; what the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself.
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 Physically Unclonable Function Memory-Based Security Circuit Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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
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 →Patterns in the data
What the filer and technology figures show
These cards report individual figures from the dataset. None of them should be read as a ranking of strength, quality or strategy, only of count.
Largest single filer row
24 families
Intel Corp, of 526 families
Intel Corp named on 24 of 526 families
Intel Corp appears on 24 of the 526 simple patent families in scope, a 4.6% share. Three other listed rows begin with the same name as each other (Electronics & Telecomm Res Inst; Samsung Electronics Co Ltd; Renesas Electronics Corp) and are listed separately; they are not summed here because one family can name more than one filer.
Share is for this single row only.
Long tail
52 of 98
listed filers with 2 or fewer families
Most listed filers hold very few families
52 of the 98 listed filing entities hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed filer rows together sum to 73% of the 526 families, but that figure cannot be read as a coverage share since one family can name several filers and the rows overlap.
Counted in simple patent families.
Technology split
71.3%
of 526 families carry H04L
H04L carries the highest share of the technology split
H04L (digital information transmission) is present on 71.3% of the 526 families in scope, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 50.8%. Because a family can carry multiple IPC classes, these two shares add up to more than 100% rather than partitioning the set.
Shares are of the 526-family total, not of each other.
Legal status
56%
of 1,353 records granted and in force
757 of 1,353 records granted and in force at retrieval
At the retrieval date, 757 of the 1,353 published records (56%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records are a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed status that is not broken out in this dataset, so no single one of those categories can be sized from this figure.
Status is a snapshot at the retrieval date, not a durable measure.
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 physically unclonable function memory-based security circuit patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Physically Unclonable Function Memory-Based Security Circuit Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Going deeper on this set
The figures above describe what this search returned. Reading individual claim sets, tracking a specific filer's activity over time, or pulling the full filer and family list for review goes beyond what a static page can show.
Pull the full filer list
The table here shows the top 30 of 98 listed filing entities. A fuller pull surfaces rows beyond that cut, including filers holding only 1 or 2 families.
Explore in Eureka →Check granted claims directly
Family and abstract counts cannot establish claim scope. Reading the granted claims of any specific family is the only way to assess what it actually covers.
Open Eureka workspace →Track the filing trend over time
Records filed from 2022 onward are still arriving. Revisiting the trend after further publication lag gives a fuller picture of those years.
Monitor with 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 Physically Unclonable Function Memory-Based Security Circuit Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Questions about this dataset
This search returns 526 simple patent families and 1,353 published records. The family count groups each invention once regardless of how many countries it was filed in, while the record count treats each national or regional publication separately, so the same invention can contribute several records. No date limit was applied to the search, so these totals span whatever filing dates the matching records carry, not a fixed period.
Intel Corp is named on 24 of the 526 simple patent families, a 4.6% share, which is the largest count held by any single filer row in this dataset. Three other listed rows share a name with each other (entries beginning Electronics & Telecomm Res Inst, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, and Renesas Electronics Corp) but are listed and counted separately, and this page does not sum them. A large majority of the 98 listed filers, 52 of them, hold 2 or fewer families each, so filing activity is spread across many small filers rather than concentrated in a handful of large ones by any single measure shown here.
The IPC classification data shows two subclasses clearly above the rest: H04L (digital information transmission), present on 71.3% of the 526 families, and G06F (electric digital data processing), present on 50.8%. Because a single family can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% rather than dividing the set into exclusive groups. The search matched 65 subclasses in total, but only these two appear at a scale worth characterising in prose on this page.
This dataset was built from a search string requiring the terms physically unclonable function or PUF together with memory and with security or authentication, so every record in scope ties a PUF concept specifically to a memory element and to a security or authentication use. A broader PUF search without the memory and security constraints would likely return a different, probably larger, set of records that is not directly comparable to the figures on this page. The abstract of the example record shown here, US20190342106A1, illustrates the pattern: it describes a circuit with separate PUF challenge and response memories rather than a PUF implemented purely in logic or wiring.
At the retrieval date, 757 of the 1,353 published records (56%) were granted and still in force. The remaining 44% is a mix of pending applications, withdrawn, refused or lapsed documents, and records whose status could not be determined, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further. In-force status is a snapshot taken at one point in time rather than a durable indicator, and it changes continuously as applications are prosecuted, granted, abandoned or expire.
The filing-trend series, counted in published records by earliest filing year, rises from 8 records in 2007 to a peak of 140 in 2020, with 48 recorded for 2026. Records with a filing year from 2022 onward are still working through the publication pipeline, publication can lag filing by 18 months or more, longer where a PCT application enters national phase, so the recent years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a falloff in activity. This page does not report a growth rate, since computing one over such an unevenly-filled window would not be a reliable figure.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Physically Unclonable Function Memory-Based Security Circuit Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Physically Unclonable Function Memory-Based Security Circuit Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole physically unclonable function memory-based security circuit patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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:(("physically unclonable function" OR PUF) AND memory AND (security OR authentication))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 (H04L) carries 71.3% 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 1,353 records and 526 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 (2 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 30 of the 98 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 98 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 2026-10-21.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (757 of 1,353). 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.