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/pid-controller-auto-tuning-parameter-optimization-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Industrial Automation & ControlPID Controller Auto-Tuning Parameter Optimization Patents
183 patent families on PID auto-tuning: one filer holds 7, most hold two or fewer, and G05B covers 69.9%.
303
Published Records
183
Simple Patent Families
4%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
30%
In Force at Cut-off
303 published records collapse into 183 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP is named on 7 of the 183 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 In force = 90 of 303 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 183 simple patent families and 303 published records sit behind this search, with no date limit applied to the underlying query.
- Mitsubishi Electric Corp is named on 7 of the 183 families, the largest single row among 86 listed filers, at 3.8% of the family total.
- G05B, control and regulating systems, appears on 69.9% of the 183 families, the highest share of any IPC subclass in this dataset.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This landscape draws on a search for PID controller auto-tuning and parameter optimization filings: records that combine a PID or proportional-integral-derivative controller term with autotuning, self-tuning or auto-tuning language, and a gain, parameter or tuning reference. The query carries no date limit, so the 303 published records and 183 simple patent families it returns span whatever years the matching text appears in, not a fixed window chosen for this page.
Filer volume concentrates lightly at the top and spreads widely below it: the largest listed row holds 7 of the 183 families, and 80 of the 86 listed filers hold two or fewer each. On the technology side, the IPC composition is weighted toward one subclass, control and regulating systems (G05B), which appears on 69.9% of families, with several smaller subclasses making up the rest of the chart.
Records, families and filer spread at a glance
Counted over all 303 published records, including filings from before 2008; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 195 records from 2008 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. 2 rows in this table share the name FOXBORO (THE FOXBORO CO, FOXBORO CY). 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (14 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 86 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 86 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 PID Controller Auto-Tuning Parameter Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data in scope
How the filings break down
Figures below are drawn directly from the search result set: 303 published records collapsing to 183 simple patent families, with no date limit applied to the underlying query.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (195 of 303 published records)
Published records (not de-duplicated families) by earliest filing year, 2008 through 2026. The peak observed so far is 26 records in 2025; 2022 onward is still filling in because of publication lag and should not be read as a drop-off.
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 2008-2026 (195 records); the 303 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
Share of the 183 simple patent families in scope carrying each IPC subclass. One family can carry more than one subclass, so shares sum to more than 100%. G05B (Control & regulating systems) appears on 69.9% of families, the highest share of any subclass in the chart; the remaining subclasses shown each sit at smaller shares.
Shares are the percentage of the 183 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 PID Controller Auto-Tuning Parameter Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on PID Controller Auto-Tuning Parameter Optimization Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about pid controller auto-tuning parameter optimization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative record
One record from the result set
First record returned
Digital Excitation Control System Utilizing Self-Tuning PID Gains and an Associated Method of Use
BASLER ELECTRIC COMPANY
A system and method for self-tuning a PID controller utilized with an exciter and generator, which includes a power source, an exciter electrically connected to the power source, a generator that is electrically energized by the exciter, and a processor that provides a PID controller that calculates system gain, an estimated exciter time constant and an estimated generator time constant with a recursive least square with forgetting factor algorithm, wherein the estimated exciter time constant and the estimated generator time constant are utilized to calculate PID gains by the processor, wherein the processor includes a random input generator that is summed with the output of the PID controller.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It describes what the document discloses; what its 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 PID Controller Auto-Tuning Parameter Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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 →Key figures
What the numbers show
Three figures anchor this dataset: how the records and families are counted, how filing volume spreads across the listed filers, and where the technology classification concentrates.
Dataset size
183 families
simple patent families
303 records collapse to 183 families
The search returns 303 published records, de-duplicated to 183 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. No date limit is applied, so this is the full set the search string matches, bounded only by the terms it searches for.
Counted in simple patent families and published records.
Largest filer
7 families
Mitsubishi Electric Corp
One row at 3.8% of families, a long tail below it
Mitsubishi Electric Corp is named on 7 of the 183 simple patent families, the largest single row among the 86 listed filers. 80 of those 86 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows are not additive since one family can name several filers, so no combined share across rows is reported here.
Counted in simple patent families; 86 entities listed, table shows top 30.
Technology split
69.9%
of families carry G05B
G05B carries the largest IPC share
G05B, control and regulating systems, appears on 128 of the 183 simple patent families in scope (69.9%), the highest share of any subclass the search returned. Families can carry more than one IPC subclass, so this share is not exclusive of the others shown in the chart.
Counted in simple patent families; shares can sum above 100%.
Legal status
30%
of records in force
90 of 303 records in force at retrieval
90 of the 303 published records (30%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated out here. This is a legal-status snapshot, not a measure of portfolio quality.
Counted in published records, as of retrieval date 2026-10-27.
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 pid controller auto-tuning parameter optimization 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 PID Controller Auto-Tuning Parameter Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Where to take this from here
The figures above describe what this search returned. Going further, whether that means reading claim scope, checking a specific filer's full portfolio, or tracking new publications as they land, calls for the underlying records rather than the summary.
Read the claims that matter to you
A family count or an abstract cannot tell you what a granted claim requires. Pull the specific record and its full claim set before drawing any conclusion about scope or freedom to operate.
Open records in EurekaTrack filers beyond the top row
With 80 of 86 listed filers holding two or fewer families each, most of the activity here sits outside any single company. Monitoring new filings as they publish is the only way to see that spread change over time.
Set up tracking in EurekaWatch the incomplete recent years fill in
Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing. Revisit the filing trend periodically rather than treating the current count for those years as final.
Monitor the trend in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for PID Controller Auto-Tuning Parameter Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Frequently asked
Questions practitioners ask about this dataset
This search returns 303 published records, which collapse to 183 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. The query has no date limit, so this is every matching record the search string finds regardless of when it was filed. The figure depends entirely on the search terms used, so a differently worded query against the same technology would likely return a different count.
Mitsubishi Electric Corp is named on 7 of the 183 simple patent families in scope, the largest single row among the 86 listed filers, which is 3.8% of the family total. Beyond that single row, 80 of the 86 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which indicates a spread rather than a concentration at the very top. Filer names are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and any subsidiaries appear as separate rows and are never summed together on this page.
G05B, the control-and-regulating-systems subclass, appears on 69.9% of the 183 simple patent families in scope, the highest share of any subclass measured here. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC subclass, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be read as a partition of the dataset. The chart on the page shows the full set of subclasses the search returned; the prose here focuses on the one carrying the largest share.
Counted in published records, the largest receiving offices in this dataset are China with 101 records and the United States with 63, followed by Japan, the EPO, WIPO's PCT route and India. These figures are counted per record per office, so a single invention filed in several countries adds one record to each office it reaches, and the totals shown do not add up to the full record count because only the six largest offices out of 27 in total are listed. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
The chart counts published records by earliest filing year, and publication lags filing by roughly 18 months for direct filings and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. As a result, the years from 2022 onward are still filling in and understate the eventual count; the peak so far, 26 records in 2025, will likely rise as more records from that year and later publish. The series also counts documents, not de-duplicated inventions, so an increase can reflect the same invention being filed in more jurisdictions rather than more distinct inventions appearing.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for PID Controller Auto-Tuning Parameter Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research PID Controller Auto-Tuning Parameter Optimization Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole pid controller auto-tuning parameter optimization 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:(("PID controller" OR "proportional-integral-derivative controller") AND (autotun* OR "self-tuning" OR "auto-tuning") AND (gain OR parameter OR tuning))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 (G05B) carries 69.9% 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 303 records and 183 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 (14 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 86 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 86 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 2026-10-27.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (90 of 303). 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.