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 →17 patent families cover PLC execution-trace and breakpoint debugging tools, with filings concentrated in G05B control systems and G06F data processing.
19 published records collapse into 17 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 8 of 19 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This search pulls records matching PLC, program, execution trace or breakpoint, and debugging in the title, abstract or claims. It returns 17 simple patent families and 19 published records, with no start or end date applied to the search string. The filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window and should not be read as the full history of the set.
17 families is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a targeted search rather than a complete map of PLC debugging tooling, absence of a filer or a branch here is as likely to reflect the search terms as it is to reflect what has actually been filed.
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 INOVANCE (SHENZHEN INOVANCE TECH CO LTD, SUZHOU INOVANCE TECH CO LTD). 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; 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 17 of the 17 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 17 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.
The figures below are drawn directly from the search result set: a filing-trend series counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Records run from 2013 through a peak of 4 in 2024. Figures from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the last few years understate eventual counts and no slowdown or acceleration should be read into this window.
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.
G05B (control and regulating systems) appears on 12 of the 17 families, 70.6%. G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 7 of the 17 families, 41.2%. Many families carry both classes, so the two shares add to more than 100% rather than splitting the set.
Shares are the percentage of the 17 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 plc program execution trace and breakpoint debugging tool patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA method for synchronizing sensor data from an industrial process with program trace data from a control program executed by a programmable logic controller (PLC) controlling the industrial equipment. The method includes executing a control program, receiving sensor data from various sensors, and recording time-stamped program trace data and sensor data during execution. Instances of the time-stamped data are synchronized and may be replayed alongside re-execution of the program.Shown as the first record returned under the database default order, not as the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set.


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 worth checking before treating any single filer or class as representative of this dataset.
Shenzhen Inovance Tech Co Ltd and Nanjing Sciyon Automation Grp are each named on 2 of the 17 simple patent families (11.8%). No single row in the listed filers exceeds this count, so there is no single largest filer in this result set.
Every one of the 17 listed filer rows holds 2 or fewer simple patent families. The rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer; on this dataset the listed rows already add to more than the 17-family total.
G05B (control and regulating systems) is present on 12 of 17 families and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 7 of 17. Because a family can carry both classes, these shares are not mutually exclusive and do not sum to 100%.
The 19 published records were filed at two offices: China with 17 records and the United States with 2. This counts where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to plc program execution trace and breakpoint debugging tool patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page surfaces the headline figures. Pulling the granted claims, checking legal status record by record, or re-running the search with adjusted terms takes a dedicated workspace.
A family count or an abstract cannot tell you what a granted claim actually requires. Pull the full claim set for any record before drawing conclusions about scope.
Open in Patsnap EurekaThis result set reflects one search string with no date limit. Adjusting the terms may surface filers or classes this version does not capture.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaThis search returns 17 simple patent families and 19 published records with no date limit applied. A simple family counts one invention regardless of how many countries it was filed in, while published records count each publication separately, which is why the two numbers differ. Because the dataset is small, it should be read as a starting point for further search rather than an exhaustive count of everything filed in this space.
No single filer leads this result set. Shenzhen Inovance Tech Co Ltd and Nanjing Sciyon Automation Grp are tied at the top with 2 simple patent families each, and every other listed filer holds 2 or fewer. The filer rows cannot be added together to produce a combined share, because one family can name more than one filer and the listed rows already sum to more than the 17-family total.
G05B (control and regulating systems) appears on 12 of the 17 simple patent families, 70.6%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 7 of 17, 41.2%. These shares overlap rather than add to 100%, since a single family can be classified under both. No other subclass in this dataset reaches a share worth reporting here.
At the retrieval date, 8 of the 19 published records (42%) were granted and still in force. The remainder are a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable status that is not broken out further in this dataset. In-force status reflects a snapshot at one point in time and changes continuously, so it should not be read as a success rate.
The 19 published records were filed through two receiving offices: China with 17 records and the United States with 2. This reflects where the applications were filed, not where any filer is organised or based, since this dataset carries no nationality information for any filer.
Go past this page: query the whole plc program execution trace and breakpoint debugging tool 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:((PLC AND program) AND ("execution trace" OR breakpoint) AND debugging)
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 70.6% 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 19 records and 17 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 17 of the 17 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 17 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 (8 of 19). 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