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 →33 patent families on satellite modem FEC LDPC decoders, with filer spread, IPC mix and a 2007-2026 filing window.
64 published records collapse into 33 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 18 of 64 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page covers records matching a search string tying together satellite, modem, forward error correction (FEC), and LDPC / decoder terms in the title, abstract and claims. It returns 64 published records, de-duplicated into 33 simple patent families. The search string carries no date limit, so the result set spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to fall in, not a chosen period.
With only 33 families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat the page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the field: a handful of documents either way would change the shares quoted here, and the search terms themselves will have missed some relevant filings and pulled in some unrelated ones.
Counted over all 64 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 38 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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE LTD, AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE 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. 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 (2 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 22 of the 22 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 22 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Counts below are drawn directly from the search results, split by publication year, receiving office and IPC subclass.
2007 is the highest year shown in this window, with 12 published records; it is also the first year the chart displays, since 26 records with earlier filing dates sit outside it. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the recent end of the line understates its eventual count.
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 (38 records); the 64 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2007 is the highest year shown, but it is also the first year in the window: earlier filings sit outside this chart, so this is not necessarily the historical peak.
H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 60.6% of the 33 families, ahead of H04B (transmission, general) at 36.4%, H03M (coding & code conversion) at 30.3%, and H04N (pictorial communication) at 24.2%. A family can carry more than one of these classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 33 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 satellite modem forward error correction ldpc decoder implementation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA communication device is configured to encode and/or decode low density parity check (LDPC) coded signals. Such LDPC coded signals are characterized by LDPC matrices having a particular form. An LDPC matrix may be partitioned into a left hand side matrix and the right hand side matrix. The right hand side matrix can be lower triangular such that all of the sub-matrices therein are all-zero-valued sub-matrices except for those sub-matrices located on a main diagonal of the right hand side matrix and another diagonal adjacently located to the left of the main diagonal.US9178653B2, filed by AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE. LIMITED, published 2015-11-03. This is simply the first record the database returns under its default order, not a ranking by importance or citation count.


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 treating any single number as a conclusion.
18 of the 64 published records (28%) were granted and still in force at the data retrieval date of 2026-10-20. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further.
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE LTD is named on 6 of the 33 families in scope. A separately listed row, AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD, is not combined with this figure because filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and a family can name more than one filer.
Of the 22 organisation filers listed for this search, 20 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows sum to 32 against a total of 33 families, but that sum cannot be read as a coverage or concentration percentage because rows overlap.
H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 20 of the 33 families (60.6%), the highest single-subclass share in this set, ahead of H04B at 36.4% and H03M at 30.3%. Since one family can carry several IPC subclasses, these shares add to more than 100% and cannot be treated as a partition of the dataset.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to satellite modem forward error correction ldpc decoder implementation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports counts. Turning them into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision takes a closer read of the underlying documents.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim requires. Read the claim set for any record that matters to a specific design before drawing conclusions about scope.
Open Eureka →With only 33 families in scope, small changes to the search terms will shift which records and shares appear. Try adjacent terms for LDPC decoder implementation to see how stable the picture is.
Run a search in Eureka →This search returns 64 published records, which de-duplicate into 33 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. The search string has no date limit, so this reflects whatever filing years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a chosen period. Because the search terms are specific, the true count of relevant filings could be somewhat higher or lower depending on terminology choices made in the underlying documents.
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE LTD is named on 6 of the 33 families in scope (18.2%), the highest count for any single row in the list of 22 organisation filers returned. A separately listed row with a similar name, AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD, appears on its own and is not combined with that figure, since filer names are not rolled up to corporate group and a family can name more than one filer. Beyond that row, 20 of the 22 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so the rest of the list is thinly spread rather than concentrated in a second or third row.
The IPC subclasses with the largest shares of the 33 families are H04L, digital information transmission, at 60.6%, H04B, transmission in general, at 36.4%, H03M, coding and code conversion, at 30.3%, and H04N, pictorial communication, at 24.2%. A family can carry more than one of these classes at once, so the shares add to more than 100% and should not be read as a split of the dataset into non-overlapping parts. Smaller classes also appear in the results but sit well below these four and are not detailed here.
No. A family count or a filer's position in this list says nothing about the scope of its claims, and this page only reports counts and an abstract where one is shown. Whether a specific design falls inside or outside any claim has to be read from the granted claim set and prosecution history of that specific document, not inferred from how many families a filer holds. Equivalents doctrine also means that falling outside the literal wording of a claim is not the same as being clear of it.
The chart's filing-trend window begins in 2007, which shows 12 published records, but 26 records with earlier filing dates sit outside that window, so 2007 cannot be called a historical or the highest year shown. It is only the highest year shown in this particular window. Filing years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later applications publish, typically 18 to 30 months after filing, so the most recent years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a slowdown.
Go past this page: query the whole satellite modem forward error correction ldpc decoder implementation 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:((satellite AND modem) AND ("forward error correction" OR FEC) AND (LDPC OR "low density parity check" OR decoder))
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 (H04L) carries 60.6% 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 64 records and 33 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 (2 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 22 of the 22 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 22 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 2026-10-20.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (18 of 64). 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