https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/processor-loop-buffer-execution-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · High-Performance & Advanced Computing

Processor Loop Buffer Execution Patents: Who Holds the Core Claims

A data-backed look at processor loop buffer and loop cache patents from 2015 to 2026: who holds the leading families, where filings are concentrated by IPC class and receiving office, and how the filing trend has moved s

252
Published Records
46%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-63%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth = 2021 (8 records) → 2024 (3); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 252 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.

Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this landscape covers

Loop buffer and loop cache execution is a narrow but persistent claim area inside processor design: small on-chip structures that hold recently fetched instructions so a tight loop can re-execute without repeatedly hitting the instruction cache or program memory. The search underlying this page pulls 252 published records filed or published between 2015 and 2026 that combine a loop buffer or loop cache with instruction fetch, decode or execution logic. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent years in any trend understate real filing activity.

The records span 57 ranked assignees, from processor vendors filing dense continuation families to single-filing academic and startup entrants. Technology composition, receiving office and concentration figures on this page describe the shape of that field as it stands in the dataset, not a prediction of where it goes next.

Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
  1. 1INTEL CORP27
  2. 2APPLE INC26
  3. 3TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC24
  4. 4INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION22
  5. 5INTERUNIVERSITAIR MICRO ELECTRONICS CENT (IMEC VZW)18
  6. 6MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC18
  7. 7ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC13
  8. 8FUJITSU LTD12
  9. 9KATHOLIEKE UNIV LEUVEN11
  10. 10ANALOG DEVICES INC10
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Processor Loop Buffer Execution Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 252 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.

Filing activity, 2007–2026

Filings rose to a peak of 29 records in 2013, then eased. The 2021-to-2024 span moved from 8 to 3 records, a -63% change; 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under publication lag and should not be read as a continued decline.

Filing activity, 2007–20260815233032007200920112920132015201720192021202320251Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.

IPC subclass composition

G06F (electric digital data processing) covers 95.2% of the 252 records in scope, confirming this is fundamentally a core-processor claim area. Every other subclass — G01R, G11C, G06N, H01Q, H10N, G02F, G06T — sits at 2.8% or below, meaning loop buffer claims rarely cross into memory architecture, AI acceleration or measurement domains in a way that shows up as a primary class.

IPC subclass compositionG06F · Electric digital data processi…24095.2%G01R · Electric & magnetic measurement72.8%G11C · Static & digital memories72.8%G06N · Computing based on AI models62.4%H01Q · Antennas20.8%H10N · Other electric solid-state dev…20.8%G02F · Optical control & modulation10.4%G06T · Image data processing & genera…10.4%Other10.4%

Shares are the percentage of the 252 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Processor Loop Buffer Execution Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Processor Loop Buffer Execution Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about processor loop buffer execution patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Representative Filing

A foundational claim in this space

Representative Record
US6963965B12005-11-08

US6963965B1 — Instruction-programmable processor with instruction loop cache

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED

An instruction-programmable processor, such as a digital signal processor, having a level one program cache memory and instruction buffer subsystem, is disclosed. The subsystem includes a loop cache subsystem that includes a branch cache register file for storing instruction opcodes corresponding to a sequence of fetch addresses beginning with a base address. If the fetch address issued by the instruction fetch unit is a hit relative to the loop cache subsystem loop cache control logic disables reads from program data RAM in favor of accesses to the branch cache register file.Filed by Texas Instruments; published 2005-11-08, ahead of the 2015–2026 window this page tracks, and cited as a foundational structure in the loop cache art that later filings build against.

US6963965B1 — patent drawing 1US6963965B1 — patent drawing 2
View full record
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Processor Loop Buffer Execution Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
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 →
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 →
Signals

What the data means for a filing decision

Four read-outs from the concentration, trend and composition figures above, framed for someone deciding where to file or where to look for a workaround.

Concentration
46.4%
of 252 records held by top 5

The top of the field is dense

Five assignees hold 117 of the 252 records in scope, 46.4% of the field. That level of concentration means claim space around core loop buffer mechanics — hit detection, branch cache register files, fetch-address comparison — is largely occupied by a small group of processor vendors.

Top 5 combined, 252-record base
Breadth
71.8%
of 252 records held by top 10

The next five add real share, not a long tail yet

Extending from five to ten assignees adds another 25.4 points of coverage, taking the top group to 71.8% of all 252 records. The remaining 47 ranked assignees split the rest, so most of the field outside the leaders is genuinely thin filing rather than a second concentrated tier.

Top 10 combined, 252-record base
Trend
-63%
filing change, 2021→2024

Filing has cooled off its 2013 peak

Activity peaked at 29 records in 2013 and the 2021-to-2024 window shows an 8-to-3 drop, -63% over three years. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are not yet a reliable read on current appetite, but the completed-year trend through 2024 is down from the earlier peak.

2021 = 8, 2024 = 3 records
Class Reach
95.2%
of 252 records classed G06F

Claims stay inside core digital processing

G06F accounts for 95.2% of the 252 records, with every other subclass at 2.8% or below. Loop buffer claims are being written almost entirely as core processor architecture rather than as memory, AI-accelerator or measurement inventions, which narrows where an examiner will look for prior art but also narrows where a filer can differentiate by class.

IPC subclass share, 252-record base
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 processor loop buffer execution patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Processor Loop Buffer Execution Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Where to take this analysis

The figures above describe the field as filed. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going deeper into specific claim language and specific assignees.

Map the leaders' claim scope directly

Concentration figures show that five assignees hold nearly half the field. Pulling their individual claim sets shows exactly which fetch, decode and hit-detection mechanics are already covered and which variants are open.

Explore assignee claims in Eureka →

Track the completed-year trend, not the partial one

The 2025–2026 filing counts are still filling in under publication lag. Re-running this search against a fresher data cut in Eureka gives a truer read once those years mature.

Set up a monitoring search in Eureka →

Check adjacent IPC classes for white space

With 95.2% of records sitting in G06F, the thin activity in G11C, G06N and G01R may be under-claimed rather than technically irrelevant. Eureka's classification tools can test that hypothesis against full claim text.

Run a white-space check in Eureka →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Processor Loop Buffer Execution Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about loop buffer execution patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Processor Loop Buffer Execution Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Processor Loop Buffer Execution Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole processor loop buffer execution patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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 inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. 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, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently 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.

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.