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 →150 patent families on PID controller auto-tuning, led by a 4.0% top filer with 77 of 83 filers holding 2 or fewer families each.
251 published records collapse into 150 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. KK TOSHIBA is named on 6 of the 150 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 In force = 65 of 251 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape covers 150 simple patent families drawn from 251 published records matching a search for PID (proportional integral derivative) controllers combined with auto-tuning, self-tuning or autotune language and a parameter term. The search string sets no date limit, so the result set reflects every matching record the database holds rather than a defined period, and the filing-trend chart on this page shows a recent window only, not the full history behind these counts.
Filer names in the dataset are organisations; filings held by named individuals are excluded from the ranked list but remain inside every total and share quoted on this page. Because one simple patent family can name more than one filer, and a parent and its subsidiaries are listed as separate rows, no combined or group-level share is presented anywhere on this page.
Counted over all 251 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 144 records from 2007 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 (17 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 83 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 83 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.
The chart below counts simple patent families against IPC subclass and published records against filing year; the two use different units and are labelled accordingly.
Records run from 1 in 2007 to a peak so far of 22 in 2025. The stretch from 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings publish, so recent years understate their eventual count, this reflects publication lag, not a change in filing behaviour.
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 (144 records); the 251 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G05B, control and regulating systems, appears on 107 of the 150 simple patent families in scope (71.3%). A family can carry more than one IPC subclass, so the full set of shares shown on the chart adds up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 150 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 pid controller parameter auto-tuning method patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaAn autotuner control system may be implemented to monitor and control operation of a drilling system and one or more drilling parameters during drilling operations. The control system may be a proportional integral derivative (PID) controller or a proportional integral (PI) controller, which can run iteratively during drilling operations to adjust drilling parameters and/or the controller. The PI or PID controller may apply adaptive filters to update and adjust one or more controller parameters (PID or PI), to autotune such parameters and may incorporate a stability constraint filter to constrain said adaptive filter, such as to reduce the impact of dead time and process time delays and adjustments.This is the first record the search returns under the database's default order, not a ranked, most-cited or most representative pick. It is shown here to illustrate what one matching record actually claims, not to characterise 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 anchor this landscape: how concentrated filing is at the top of the list, how deep the long tail runs, and where the technology classification clusters.
KK TOSHIBA is named on 6 of the 150 simple patent families in scope, a 4.0% share and the largest single-row figure among the 83 listed filers. Filer names are not rolled up to corporate group, and one family can name more than one filer, so this figure belongs to this row alone.
77 of the 83 organisations returned by the search hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows as a group sum to 73% of the 150 families in scope, but because rows overlap this cannot be read as a coverage percentage.
G05B, control and regulating systems, is tagged on 107 of the 150 simple patent families in scope, the highest share recorded for any IPC subclass here. A family can carry more than one subclass, so this share is not exclusive of the others shown on the chart.
At the retrieval date, 65 of the 251 published records (26%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records cover pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable status, not broken out further in this dataset.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to pid controller parameter auto-tuning method patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
These figures describe filing patterns in the dataset; they do not establish claim scope, validity or freedom to operate for any specific design.
Family counts and abstracts describe what a filing discusses, not what its claims legally require. Before relying on any conclusion about scope, pull the granted claim set for the specific record in question.
Search full-text claims on EurekaA handful of organisations in this dataset hold more than a single family each. Watching their later filings can surface how their claim language develops over time, without assuming any group-level ownership across similarly named rows.
Set up filer alerts on EurekaFiling years from 2022 onward are still publishing and will rise as more records become visible. A later check against this same search string will give a more complete picture of those years.
Re-run this search on EurekaThis search returns 251 published records, which collapse to 150 simple patent families once multiple filings of the same invention across countries are merged into one line. The search string carries no date limit, so this is every matching record the database holds rather than a fixed period. Because the query depends on exact phrases like "auto-tuning" and "proportional integral derivative", records that describe the same behaviour in other words will not appear in this count.
KK TOSHIBA is named on 6 of the 150 simple patent families in scope, a 4.0% share, the largest single-row figure among the 83 organisations the search returned. Below that, the field spreads out quickly: 77 of those 83 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer names are not rolled up to corporate group, so any entity-level figure belongs strictly to that one row and should not be added to similarly-named rows.
At the retrieval date, 65 of the 251 published records (26%) were granted and still in force. The remaining 74% covers pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable status, but that breakdown is not separated out in this dataset, so no single reason can be assigned to the gap. In-force status is a snapshot that changes continuously and should not be read as a measure of how commercially successful any filing has been.
Of the 150 simple patent families, 107 (71.3%) carry the IPC subclass G05B, control and regulating systems, the largest share recorded here. Smaller subclasses also appear on the chart covering areas such as motor control and AI-based computing, but at this dataset size a small-class match can reflect a broad search term catching an unrelated field as easily as a genuine branch of the technology, so those are not characterised here. A family can be tagged with more than one subclass, so shares across the full set add up to more than 100%.
The search returned applications across 20 receiving offices. The largest counts recorded are China with 83 published records, the United States with 50, Japan with 27, Europe (EPO) with 19, WIPO/PCT filings with 16, and the United Kingdom with 9; one invention can appear more than once if it was filed through multiple offices, so these figures do not add up to the 251-record total. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, the dataset carries no nationality information for any filer.
Go past this page: query the whole pid controller parameter auto-tuning method 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:(("PID controller" OR "proportional integral derivative") AND (autotun* OR "auto-tuning" OR "self-tuning") AND parameter*)
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 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 251 records and 150 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 (17 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 83 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 83 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 (65 of 251). 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.
This page