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


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 →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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 →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 →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 →A loop buffer, sometimes called a loop cache, is a small on-chip structure that holds a recently fetched sequence of instructions so a tight loop can re-execute from the buffer instead of re-fetching from the instruction cache or program memory each pass. It saves fetch bandwidth and power on hot loops, which matters for every processor vendor building CPUs, DSPs or accelerators. Because the core mechanics — hit detection against a base fetch address, register-file storage of opcodes, backward-branch triggered loading — are reusable across many processor designs, vendors file dense claim families around small variations, which is why the field shows heavy concentration at the top of the assignee ranking.
The dataset behind this page ranks 57 assignees, with the top five holding 46.4% of all 252 records in scope and the top ten holding 71.8%. That is not an even spread: a small group of processor and semiconductor vendors account for most of the filing activity, while dozens of other assignees appear with only one or a handful of records each. The full ranking, rather than a hand-picked list, is the reliable way to see exactly who sits where.
Filing peaked at 29 records in 2013 and has not returned to that level since. Looking at the last fully-settled window, 2021 to 2024, filings dropped from 8 to 3 records, a -63% change. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so those most recent years should not be read as continued decline — they are simply still filling in.
Almost all of it sits inside G06F, electric digital data processing, which covers 95.2% of the 252 records in scope. Small pockets extend into G01R (electric and magnetic measurement) and G11C (static and digital memories), each at 2.8%, and smaller shares still touch G06N (AI-based computing), antennas, solid-state devices, optical control and image processing. In practice this means loop buffer claims are written almost exclusively as core processor architecture rather than as memory-, AI-, or sensor-specific inventions.
The concentration data points toward the answer indirectly: with 46.4% of the 252 records held by five assignees and heavy filing bunched inside G06F, the core hit-detection and register-file mechanics are well covered by the leaders. Thinner activity in adjacent classes like G11C, G06N and G01R suggests combinations of loop buffering with memory management, AI-workload scheduling or on-chip measurement are less claimed, though that needs confirming against actual claim text rather than class counts alone. A freedom-to-operate search focused on the leading assignees' specific claim language, not just their filing volume, is the necessary next step before committing to a design.
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.
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.
This page