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 →A small set of 8 patent families on SCADA thin-client and web-based operator interfaces, with no single filer ahead of the rest.
31 published records collapse into 8 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 10 of 31 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports patent families matched by the search string TAC:((SCADA) AND ("thin client" OR "web based") AND (operator OR interface)), records whose title or abstract combine SCADA with a thin-client or web-based delivery mode and a reference to an operator or interface. The set totals 8 simple patent families drawn from 31 published records, with no start-year limit applied, so the scope runs across whatever filing dates the matching documents happen to carry.
Eight families is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the technology: a handful of documents can shift any share shown here, and the absence of a term from the search string is a far more likely explanation for a gap than the absence of filing activity.
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 (9 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 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
The figures below are drawn directly from the search result: a filing-trend series counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.
The series runs from a 2009 start of 8 published records to a peak of 9 in 2015. 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 drop in activity.
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.
G05B (control and regulating systems) and H04L (digital information transmission) each appear on 4 of the 8 families (50.0%), and G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 3 of the 8 (37.5%). Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive.
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 scada web based thin client operator interface patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaUS20200125076A1 describes a computer-implemented method at an energy management system (EMS) controller for automatically generating a SCADA slave interface. It stores a SCADA configuration file mapping SCADA data points to EMS data objects, provides those objects in a statically typed programming language, scans them with an object access framework alongside site configuration information to build an object binding repository, and compiles the resulting SCADA configuration.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. Nothing about its position here implies it is representative of the other 7 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.
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 this dataset are worth isolating on their own, each with what it does and does not establish.
Seven filers, Toshiba Mitsubishi Electric Industrial Systems Corp, GE Intelligent Platforms, IIA Tech, Siemens AG, Jiangyin Xingcheng Special Steel Works, Ivago AB and Wartsila North America among them, are each named on 1 of the 8 simple patent families. Because one family can name more than one filer, these rows cannot be added together into a combined share.
All 7 of the 7 filers returned in this list hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This describes how thinly filing activity is spread across the listed entities; it does not describe the field as a whole, since the filer list excludes individually named inventors who still count toward the 8-family total.
10 of the 31 published records were granted and still in force when the data was pulled. The remaining records sit in other states, pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, which are not broken out individually here, so no single one of those categories can be sized from this page.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to scada web based thin client operator interface patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a search result, not a cleared landscape. The steps below move from reading its figures to checking what the underlying documents actually claim.
An abstract and a family count describe what a filing is about, not what its claims cover. Before assuming a document blocks or clears any particular design, read the granted claim set directly.
Open a record in EurekaWith only 8 families in scope, small changes to the search terms can move every share on this page. Testing synonyms for "thin client" and "operator interface" is a reasonable next step before drawing conclusions from this set alone.
Refine the search in EurekaNames here are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and its subsidiaries can appear as separate rows. Confirm any relationship between rows before treating them as one organisation.
Explore filer records in EurekaThis search returned 8 simple patent families and 31 published records matching the string TAC:((SCADA) AND ("thin client" OR "web based") AND (operator OR interface)). No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever filing dates the matching documents carry rather than a fixed window. Because the search targets specific terms in the title and abstract, documents that describe the same technology with different wording would not appear here, so this figure should be read as a count of matching documents, not a count of all inventions in the area.
The search returned 7 organisational filers, each named on 1 of the 8 simple patent families, which means no single filer holds more families than the others in this list. The entities include Toshiba Mitsubishi Electric Industrial Systems Corp, GE Intelligent Platforms, Siemens AG, IIA Tech, Jiangyin Xingcheng Special Steel Works, Ivago AB and Wartsila North America. This list excludes individually named inventors, who are still counted in the 8-family total, and the rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer.
The filing trend, counted in published records by earliest filing year, starts at 8 records in 2009 and peaks at 9 in 2015. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications work through publication, typically 18 to 30 months depending on the route, so the most recent years understate their eventual totals. With only 8 families in the underlying set, year-to-year movements in this chart should be read as too small a sample to indicate a trend either way.
Within the 8 simple patent families, G05B (control and regulating systems) and H04L (digital information transmission) each appear on 4 families (50.0%), and G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 3 (37.5%). A single family can carry more than one classification, so these shares overlap and add up to more than 100%. These three subclasses are the ones with enough weight in this dataset to describe with any confidence; smaller classifications returned by the same search are shown on the chart but are not broken out here.
10 of the 31 published records (32%) were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-16 retrieval date. The remaining records fall into other statuses, pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed, or not determinable, which are not separated out individually in this dataset. Legal status changes continuously and varies by jurisdiction, so this figure is a snapshot at the retrieval date rather than a lasting measure of the technology's value or strength.
Go past this page: query the whole scada web based thin client operator interface 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:((SCADA) AND ("thin client" OR "web based") AND (operator OR interface))
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 31 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 (9 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 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 (10 of 31). 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