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 122 patent families on QR code error-correction encoding and decoding, led by a filer with just 3.3% share.
286 published records collapse into 122 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. NIPPON SHEET GLASS CO LTD is named on 4 of the 122 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 In force = 116 of 286 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape covers 122 simple patent families and 286 published records returned by a search for QR code and quick response code filings that mention error correction or Reed-Solomon coding alongside encoding or decoding. The search string sets no date limit, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to carry; the filing-trend chart below shows a recent window only, not the full history.
At retrieval, 116 of the 286 records (41%) were granted and still in force. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not available on this page.
Counted over all 286 published records, including filings from before 2009; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 265 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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (DENSO CORP, DENSO WAVE INC). 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 (21 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 79 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 79 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: one trend series counted in published records, and one technology split counted in simple patent families.
Published records run from 3 in 2009 to a peak of 34 in 2022, with 5 recorded so far in 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so the most recent years understate eventual totals 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 2009-2026 (265 records); the 286 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06K (Data recognition & presentation) appears on 65.6% of the 122 families in scope, and G06F (Electric digital data processing) on 18.0%. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to more than 100%, and the chart includes additional subclasses beyond the two discussed in the text.
Shares are the percentage of the 122 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 qr code error correction encoding and decoding algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a system for decoding QR codes in complex scenes and for generating multi-layer color QR codes. The decoding method it describes detects rough QR code locations with a pre-trained learning-based detector, localizes finder and alignment patterns, corrects geometric distortion based on those patterns, restores module color with a learning-based classifier, and decodes the code from the restored data.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. US9805296B2, filed by The Chinese University of Hong Kong, published 2017-10-31.


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 from the dataset are worth isolating on their own, each with what it does and does not establish.
NIPPON SHEET GLASS CO LTD is named on 4 of the 122 simple patent families in scope, equal to 3.3%. This is the largest figure recorded for any single row in the filer list; it does not indicate claim scope, validity or commercial activity.
Of the 79 organisations returned in the filer list, 74 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The filer rows overlap because a family can name more than one filer, so these counts cannot be summed into a combined share.
116 of the 286 published records (41%) were granted and still in force as of the retrieval date. The remaining 59% covers pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable statuses, which are not broken out further on this page.
G06K (Data recognition & presentation) appears on 80 of the 122 families in scope, or 65.6%. G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 22 families, or 18.0%. Because classes can overlap within a single family, these shares add to more than 100%.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to qr code error correction encoding and decoding algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures on this page describe what the search returned. Going deeper into any one filer, classification or record requires reading the underlying documents directly.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Eureka can surface the full claim set and prosecution history for any record named on this page.
Explore claims in Eureka →Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish. Eureka can monitor this search string for new records as they appear.
Set up monitoring in Eureka →Filer rows here are not rolled up to corporate group, so a name in this list may have related entities filed separately. Eureka can search a given organisation's filings directly.
Search assignees in Eureka →This search returns 122 simple patent families, consolidated across countries, backed by 286 published records. The search string has no date limit, so the set includes matching records from whatever filing years the database holds, not a fixed recent window. Because the string matches on error correction, Reed-Solomon, encoding and decoding terms together with QR code or quick response code, it captures filings that discuss these topics together rather than every QR-related patent generally.
NIPPON SHEET GLASS CO LTD is named on 4 of the 122 simple patent families in scope, the largest figure for any single row in the filer list, equal to 3.3%. The filer list returns 79 organisations in total, of which 75 hold 2 or fewer families each, so filing activity is spread across a long tail rather than concentrated in a few rows. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate parent or subsidiary, and because one family can name several filers, the rows cannot be added together to produce a combined share.
Published records in this set run from 3 in 2009 up to a peak of 34 in 2022, with 5 recorded so far in 2026. The chart counts published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated families, so the same invention filed in multiple countries adds more than one mark to the line. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so the drop visible in the most recent years reflects publication lag rather than a fall in filing activity.
116 of the 286 published records, or 41%, were granted and still in force as of the retrieval date. The remaining 59% is not broken down further on this page and could include pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable statuses. In-force status reflects a single point in time for each document and changes continuously, so it should not be read as a success rate or a measure of the technology's value.
G06K, which covers data recognition and presentation, appears on 80 of the 122 families in scope, or 65.6%, the highest share of any IPC subclass here. G06F, electric digital data processing, follows at 22 families or 18.0%. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC classification, these two shares add to more than 100%, and the dataset includes a number of additional smaller subclasses not detailed in this summary.
Go past this page: query the whole qr code error correction encoding and decoding algorithm 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:(("QR code" OR "quick response code") AND ("error correction" OR "Reed-Solomon") AND (encod* OR decod*))
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 (G06K) carries 65.6% 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 286 records and 122 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 (21 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 79 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 79 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 2026-10-27.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (116 of 286). 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