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 →Analysis of 1,686 patent families on programmable logic array circuit architecture, led by NEC Corp with 99 families of 94 listed filers.
3,985 published records collapse into 1,686 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. NEC CORP is named on 99 of the 1,686 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 In force = 572 of 3,985 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape draws on a search for "programmable logic array" or PLA combined with AND-plane, OR-plane or array terms, restricted to circuit-related records. The search applies no date limit, so the 1,686 simple patent families and 3,985 published records in scope span whatever years the matching documents were filed in, not a fixed window chosen for this page. A single invention can generate several published records as it is filed into different offices, which is why the record count runs well above the family count.
The technology composition and filer tables that follow are read against these same two totals: families for concentration and classification shares, records for the filing trend and receiving-office breakdown. Keeping the two units separate matters here because the search string is broad enough to pull in adjacent circuit terminology, which shows up in the long list of lower-share IPC subclasses this page does not characterise.
Counted over all 3,985 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 1,103 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (6 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 94 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 94 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 results, counted in the units stated for each.
Published records by earliest filing year run from 104 in 2007 to a peak of 123 in 2008. Years from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart because publication lag means they are still filling in, the window from 2022 is understated and should not be read as a decline.
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 (1,103 records); the 3,985 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 669 families, 39.7% of the 1,686 in scope, and H03K (pulse technique & logic circuits) appears on 658 families, 39.0%. These two shares overlap where a family carries both classifications, so they do not add to a combined total.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,686 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 programmable logic array circuit architecture patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaAn assembling method for a low-power programmable logic array circuit. The assembling method is capable of reducing delays and unnecessary power consumption. Based on the low and high potential power loss when dynamic gates in the AND-plane and OR-plane output low or high potentials, and the probability of the dynamic gates outputting a high potential, a selection between a new dynamic logic circuit and a conventional dynamic circuit is carried out.Filed by National Chung Cheng University, published 2002-08-13. Shown as the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not as the most cited, newest or broadest filing in this 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 →Four figures from the dataset, reported with the unit each is counted in and what it does and does not show.
NEC CORP is named on 99 of the 1,686 simple patent families in scope, a 5.9% share. This is the largest single-row figure in the listed filers; it is not a market share and the 94 listed filers are not the complete set of entities returned.
Of the 94 listed filers, 0 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer; the listed rows alone already sum to 63% of the 1,686 families, which over-counts rather than covers them.
572 of the 3,985 published records (14%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, but that breakdown is not available here, so this figure should be read as a snapshot rather than a success rate.
The search returned 36 receiving offices in total. The United States (1,378), Europe/EPO (632) and Japan (616) are the largest of those named here, each counted in published records, so these figures sum to more than any family total and do not represent the full set of 36 offices.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to programmable logic array circuit architecture patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures above describe what this search returned. For questions that need claim-level detail or a narrower slice of the data, the next steps below go further than this page can.
Family and classification counts describe filing volume, not claim scope. Confirming what any one filing actually covers means pulling its granted claim set.
Open Patsnap EurekaA finer breakdown by claim language can separate the two.
Explore with Patsnap EurekaThe 94 listed filers are not the complete set returned by this search. Monitoring a specific filer's activity over time needs a dedicated watch rather than a static table.
Set up tracking in Patsnap EurekaThis search returns 1,686 simple patent families and 3,985 published records. The family count de-duplicates a single invention across the countries it was filed in, while the record count counts each publication separately, so the two numbers measure different things and should not be swapped for each other. The search applies no date limit, so this covers every matching record the search string returns rather than a fixed recent window.
NEC CORP is named on 99 of the 1,686 simple patent families in scope, the largest single-row figure among the 94 listed filers, which is not the complete set of entities the search returned. The fifth-placed filer holds 62 families and the tenth-placed filer 31, showing a drop-off from the top but not a precise statement about everyone below it. Filer rows should not be added together since one family can name more than one filer, and names are not rolled up to a corporate group, so a parent and its subsidiaries can appear as separate rows.
572 of the 3,985 published records, about 14%, were granted and remained in force at the retrieval date of 2026-10-21. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated out in this dataset. In-force status changes continuously and describes legal standing at one point in time, not a measure of technical or commercial value.
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 669 of the 1,686 families, 39.7%, and H03K (pulse technique & logic circuits) appears on 658 families, 39.0%. Because a family can carry both classifications, these two shares overlap and should not be added together to read as a majority. Other IPC subclasses appear in the dataset at lower shares and are not detailed here, since a broad search string can pull in adjacent, unrelated classifications that this dataset cannot distinguish from a genuine minor branch.
The filing trend by earliest filing year runs from 104 published records in 2007 to a peak of 123 in 2008, with years from 2022 onward shaded because they are still filling in. A record only becomes visible once it publishes, typically 18 to 30 months after filing, so the most recent years understate the true filing count and any apparent drop there should not be read as a real decline. The trend also counts published records rather than distinct inventions, so a single invention filed in several countries adds several marks to the same year.
Go past this page: query the whole programmable logic array circuit architecture 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:(("programmable logic array" OR PLA) AND ("AND-plane" OR "OR-plane" OR array) AND circuit)
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. No subclass carries much of this set: the most common one is on 39.7% of the patent families and the set spans 100 subclasses in all. That can mean the technology genuinely sits across several areas, or that the search string is also matching adjacent work that happens to use the same words. This page cannot separate the two, and the result set is not screened by hand.
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 3,985 records and 1,686 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 (6 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 94 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 94 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 2026-10-21.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (572 of 3,985). 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