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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/pseudorandom-function-evaluation-hardware-acceleration-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Cybersecurity & Digital TrustPseudorandom Function Evaluation Hardware Acceleration Patents
Dataset of 23 patent families on pseudorandom function hardware acceleration: filer spread, IPC mix and filing trend through 2026.
57
Published Records
23
Simple Patent Families
51%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
57 published records collapse into 23 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 29 of 57 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 23 simple patent families and 57 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search.
- Four filers tie at the top of the list with 2 families each, Seagate Tech LLC, NTT Research Inc, Google LLC and Uvue Ltd, ahead of 18 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families apiece.
- G06F and H04L are the only subclasses above the production threshold, at 43.5% and 39.1% of the 23 families respectively.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page reports results for the search string TAC:(("pseudorandom function" OR PRF) AND evaluat* AND (hardware OR acceler*)), retrieved 2026-10-15. It returns 57 published records that de-duplicate to 23 simple patent families. No date limit was set on the query, so the set spans whatever filing years the string matched rather than a defined window; the filing-trend chart below shows a recent slice only, not the full scope.
23 families is a small pool. The counts and shares on this page describe what this particular search returned, not the size or shape of a broader field, and the page is best read as a starting point for a deeper search rather than a map of the technology.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 57 published records, including filings from before 2009; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 52 records from 2009 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 (1 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 18 of the 18 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 18 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.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Pseudorandom Function Evaluation Hardware Acceleration Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data
Filing trend and classification mix
The figures below are counted two ways: published records for the filing trend and receiving offices, and simple patent families for the filer list and IPC composition. Each chart states its own unit.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (52 of 57 published records)
Records run from 2009 (2 records) up to a peak of 15 in 2020, with 2026 at 1. The years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed records continue to publish, so the recent downward slope reflects publication lag rather than fewer filings.
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 2009-2026 (52 records); the 57 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass composition (simple patent families)
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 43.5% of the 23 families and H04L (Digital information transmission) on 39.1%; the chart lists 21 subclasses in all, with the remaining classes each carrying a smaller share of the same 23-family base.
Shares are the percentage of the 23 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Pseudorandom Function Evaluation Hardware Acceleration Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Pseudorandom Function Evaluation Hardware Acceleration Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about pseudorandom function evaluation hardware acceleration patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaExample Record
A record from the result set
First record returned, default database order
Anonymous and unlinkable authentication with membership test via private set intersection cardinality
NEC LABORATORIES EUROPE GMBH
The abstract describes a computer-implemented method that anonymously verifies credentials while performing a membership test in a privacy-preserving manner. It runs a first committed-input-and-key-shares distributed oblivious pseudorandom function (DOPRF) protocol to obtain a set of first PRF results, one per element of a checklist held by a list holder; runs a second DOPRF protocol to obtain a second PRF result tied to a prover's identity; and determines whether a checklist element corresponds to that identity from the two sets of PRF results.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, grant status or relevance. It should not be read as representative of the other 22 families.
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.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Pseudorandom Function Evaluation Hardware Acceleration Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
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 →Insights
Reading the filer and classification data
These cards state individual figures from the dataset. None of them sum rows or infer anything about a filer's location, strategy or standing.
Filer spread
4 filers tied at 2 families
top count, simple patent families
No single filer ahead of the others
Seagate Tech LLC, NTT Research Inc, Google LLC and Uvue Ltd each hold 2 of the 23 simple patent families, the top count in this list. The remaining listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, and filer names are not rolled up to corporate group, so rows that look related are counted separately.
18 filers listed, ordered by volume only
Technology mix
43.5% / 39.1%
share of 23 families, G06F / H04L
G06F and H04L carry the largest shares
G06F (Electric digital data processing) is named on 43.5% of the 23 simple patent families and H04L (Digital information transmission) on 39.1%. A family can carry both classes along with others, so these shares add to more than 100% and do not partition the set.
21 subclasses recorded in total across the set
Legal status
29 of 57
records granted and in force at retrieval
Just over half of records are in force
29 of the 57 published records (51%) were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remainder cover other statuses that are not broken out in this dataset, so no single alternative status can be quoted.
Status is a snapshot, not a quality measure
Filing offices
25 / 8 / 8
published records, US / EPO / WIPO (PCT)
United States carries the most filed records among the offices shown
Among the 10 receiving offices returned, the United States carries 25 published records, with the EPO and WIPO (PCT) at 8 each and Austria, India and South Korea at 3 each. These counts are per record, so one invention filed in several offices is counted once at each.
Largest 6 of 10 receiving offices shown
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 pseudorandom function evaluation hardware acceleration patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Pseudorandom Function Evaluation Hardware Acceleration Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to go from here
This page is a starting point built from one search string. The next steps depend on what you need to check against it.
Pull the granted claims directly
Family counts and abstracts describe what a filing is about, not what it legally covers. Before relying on any record here for a freedom-to-operate or clearance question, read the granted claim set itself.
Open Patsnap Eureka →Re-run the search with tighter terms
A string built on "pseudorandom function" and generic hardware terms will catch unrelated fields at low shares, visible in the smaller IPC classes on this page. Narrowing the string would change which families and filers show up.
Refine the search in Patsnap Eureka →Track individual filers over time
The filer list here excludes individual inventors and is capped at 18 organisations, so it is not the complete set of parties active in this space. A dedicated filer search would surface more.
Explore filer profiles in Patsnap Eureka →Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Pseudorandom Function Evaluation Hardware Acceleration Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Questions practitioners ask about this dataset
This particular search returns 57 published records that de-duplicate to 23 simple patent families. The two numbers differ because one invention can be filed, and published, in several jurisdictions, and each publication counts separately in the record total. No date limit was applied to the search, so this reflects whatever filing years the search string matched rather than a fixed span, and a different string could return a different count.
Four filers tie at the top of this list, each holding 2 of the 23 simple patent families: Seagate Tech LLC, NTT Research Inc, Google LLC and Uvue Ltd. The list goes on to 18 organisations, all holding 2 or fewer families each, and it excludes filings held by named individuals even though those are still counted in the dataset totals. Because one family can name several filers, the rows in this list overlap and cannot be added together to produce a combined share.
Published records in this set run from 2009 (2 records) to a peak of 15 in 2020, with the most recent year, 2026, at 1 record. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in because newer filings take time to publish, so the apparent drop in the last few years reflects publication lag, not fewer filings. The chart counts published records rather than distinct inventions, so a single invention filed in multiple offices adds multiple marks to the line.
Of the 23 simple patent families in this dataset, G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 43.5% and H04L (Digital information transmission) on 39.1%, the two largest shares recorded. The dataset lists 21 subclasses in total, and because a single family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100% of the family count. The smaller classes recorded alongside these two are not broken out further here.
No. This page reports family counts, classification shares and one example abstract; none of these establish what any patent's granted claims actually require. Claim scope has to be read from the granted claim set and its prosecution history, not from an abstract or a count of related filings. Anyone with a freedom-to-operate question should pull the specific claims for the records in question rather than relying on figures from this landscape page.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Pseudorandom Function Evaluation Hardware Acceleration Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Pseudorandom Function Evaluation Hardware Acceleration Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole pseudorandom function evaluation hardware acceleration patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("pseudorandom function" OR PRF) AND evaluat* AND (hardware OR acceler*))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.
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 57 records and 23 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 (1 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 18 of the 18 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 18 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 2026-10-15.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (29 of 57). 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.