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 →8 patent families on compiling streaming queries to native code, spanning Intuit, IBM, Sony and others, with filing history since 2008.
14 published records collapse into 8 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 5 of 14 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This dataset gathers records matching a search string built around stream processing, streaming queries, and code generation or native code compilation tied to execution. It returns 8 simple patent families and 14 published records, with no date limit applied to the search itself, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching documents happen to carry.
Eight families is a small pool. The figures on this page describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, and should be treated as a starting point for further search work rather than a finished map.
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 share the name MOBILE (CHINA MOBILE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO LTD, CHINA MOBILE COMM GRP CO LTD). 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified; 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 7 of the 7 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 7 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.
Two views of the same 8 families: when the underlying documents were first filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Published records by earliest filing year, from 2008 through 2026. The count peaked at 3 records, reached in 2009, 2011 and 2013. Records filed from 2022 onward are still arriving as they 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.
G06F (electric digital data processing) is named on 6 of the 8 families in scope, 75.0% of the pool. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC class, subclass shares add up to more than 100% and are not a breakdown of the whole.
Shares are the percentage of the 8 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 query compilation to native code for stream processing execution patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaUS12591417B1 (Intuit Inc, filed 2026-03-31) describes a code-generating process in which a user input is received and a supervising agent extracts a user intent to generate stream processing code, then routes the input to a code-generating workflow. A validation agent receives the generated stream processing code and a test file, validates the code against the test file, and produces a validation report indicating whether the code is valid.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate one document in scope, not to represent the dataset as a whole.


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 worth sitting with before drawing any conclusion from this dataset.
The search returns 8 simple patent families, de-duplicated across countries, and 14 published records, one per publication. The same invention filed in more than one jurisdiction adds more than one record without adding another family, so these two figures are not interchangeable.
Among the listed filers, the row with the most families is named on 4; the fifth-listed row holds 1. The filer list returns organisations only, with individual-named filers excluded from the table but still counted in the 8-family total, and listed rows are not summed because a single family can name more than one of them.
G06F (electric digital data processing) is named on 6 of the 8 families in scope. The remaining subclasses in the chart each fall under a share worth discussing on their own; this card does not break them out further.
5 of the 14 published records (36%) were granted and in force as of the retrieval date. The remaining records fall into other statuses not broken out in this dataset, and in-force status describes a snapshot in time rather than any measure of the records' strength or value.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to query compilation to native code for stream processing execution patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a starting point built from one search string. Eureka can help push past its limits.
A family count or an abstract cannot tell you what a granted claim actually covers. Before relying on any record here for a freedom-to-operate view, read its claim set directly.
Explore full claim text in EurekaWith only 8 families, this search may be missing adjacent terminology used by other filers. A broader or alternative phrasing could surface records this run did not catch.
Refine the search in EurekaWatching how the listed filers' portfolios change going forward is more informative than reading a static snapshot once.
Set up monitoring in EurekaThis particular search returns 8 simple patent families and 14 published records, with no date limit applied. That is a count of what matched a specific search string built around stream processing, streaming queries, code generation and native code compilation tied to execution, not an exhaustive count of every patent that might touch this topic. A differently worded search could return a different number, so treat this as a starting figure rather than a final one.
Among the listed filers, the row with the most families is named on 4 of the 8 families in scope, with the next-ranked listed row down at 1. The filer list returns organisations only, excludes individually named filers from the table (though they remain in the total), and is capped at the entities the data endpoint returns, so it is not a complete census of every filer. Rows are not summed even where names look related, because one family can name more than one filer and adding rows would over-count.
The abstract describes a process where a supervising agent extracts a user's intent to generate stream processing code, routes that intent to a code-generating workflow, and a validation agent checks the generated code and test file to produce a validation report. That is a description of what the filing discusses, not a legal reading of its claims. What the granted claims actually require, and how far they reach, has to be read from the claim set itself.
This dataset does not support a growth or trend reading. The filing trend chart counts published records by earliest filing year from 2008 through 2026, peaking at 3 records in 2009, 2011 and 2013, but records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing and understate their eventual totals. With only 8 families total, year-to-year movements in a chart like this reflect a handful of documents rather than any broader movement worth generalising.
Among the published records in this dataset, the United States received 9, the United Kingdom 3, China 1 and WIPO under the PCT route 1. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, and the dataset does not include filer nationality or country information at all. With totals this small, the office breakdown should be read as a feature of this specific search rather than a statement about filing behaviour generally.
Go past this page: query the whole query compilation to native code for stream processing execution 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:(("stream processing" OR "streaming query*") AND ("code generation" OR "native code compil*") AND execut*)
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 (G06F) carries 75.0% 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 14 records and 8 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. 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 7 of the 7 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 7 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 2026-10-16.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (5 of 14). 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