https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/serverless-function-cross-service-message-queue-integration-trigger-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Software & Cloud

Serverless Function Cross-Service Message Queue Integration Trigger Patents

Data on 11 patent families covering serverless message-queue trigger integration, with filer spread and filing activity through 2026.

17
Published Records
11
Simple Patent Families
35%
In Force at Cut-off
WO
Leading Jurisdiction

17 published records collapse into 11 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 6 of 17 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 8 filers share the top count of 1 family each, so there is no single most-filed entity in this dataset of 11 simple patent families.
  • G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 8 of the 8 families, the highest share of any IPC subclass in scope, at 72.7%.
  • Only 6 of the 17 published records (35%) were granted and in force at retrieval, with the remainder in other statuses not broken out here.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This page reports on 11 simple patent families (17 published records) returned by a search for serverless or function-as-a-service computing combined with message-queue or event-queue mechanisms and integration or trigger language in the title, abstract or claims. The search string sets no date limit, so the records span whatever years the matching documents happen to carry, not a defined period selected for this page. Filing is recorded in published records, legal status and filer shares in simple patent families, the two units are not interchangeable.

At 11 families, this is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, and absence of a topic here is far more likely to reflect the search terms than an absence of filing. Treat this page as a starting point for a closer search, not as a map of who files in this space.

Records retrieved vs. simple families
  1. HUAWEI CLOUD COMPUTING TECHNOLOGIES CO LTD1
  2. EMC IP HLDG CO LLC1
  3. VOLE TEKNOLOJI AS1
  4. CHINA TELECOM CLOUD TECH CO LTD1
  5. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION1
  6. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)1
  7. SHANDONG LANGCHAO YUNTOU INFORMATION TECH CO LTD1
  8. GRAPHIC ERA UNIV1

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 (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 8 of the 8 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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 Serverless Function Cross-Service Message Queue Integration Trigger Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
Data

Filing activity and technology mix

The figures below are drawn directly from the search result: a filing-trend series counted in published records, and an IPC subclass breakdown counted in simple patent families.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

Records run from 2018 (3 records) through 2026 (3 records), with a peak of 4 reached in both 2022 and 2024. From 2022 onward the counts are still filling in as later filings publish, so the shaded recent years understate the eventual total and no slowdown or acceleration can be read from this series.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)0123432018201920202021420222023420242025320262022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

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.

IPC subclass composition (share of 11 simple patent families)

G06F (electric digital data processing) is named on 8 of the 8 families (72.7%), and H04L (digital information transmission) on 3 of the 11 (27.3%). A family can carry more than one IPC subclass, so these shares add to more than 100%; other subclasses returned by the search sit below a usable share and are not discussed here.

IPC subclass composition (share of 11 simple patent families)G06F · Electric digital data processi…872.7%H04L · Digital information transmissi…327.3%G06N · Computing based on AI models19.1%H04N · Pictorial communication (video…19.1%

Shares are the percentage of the 11 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 Serverless Function Cross-Service Message Queue Integration Trigger Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Serverless Function Cross-Service Message Queue Integration Trigger Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about serverless function cross-service message queue integration trigger patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example record

A record from the result set

First record returned
US20210232438A12021-07-29

Serverless lifecycle management dispatcher

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

The abstract describes a method performed by a serverless lifecycle-management (LCM) dispatcher implementing a workload in a virtualization network. It receives a workload trigger that indicates a first workload, retrieves a description of that workload from a workload description database, and categorises the workload, based on the description and the trigger, as either a non-LCM workload needing no LCM routines, or an LCM workload that can be implemented using LCM routines.This is simply the first record the search returns under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope.

US20210232438A1, patent drawing 1US20210232438A1, patent drawing 2
View record

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 Serverless Function Cross-Service Message Queue Integration Trigger Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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
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 →
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 →
Signals

What the counts show

Three figures from this search result, each reported with the unit it was counted in.

Filer spread
8 filers tied at 1 family
top count, simple patent families

No single filer ahead of the rest

8 of the 8 listed filers hold 1 family each at the top of the list, and 8 of 8 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and can overlap where a family names more than one filer, so these counts are not added together here.

Source: filer list, simple patent families
Legal status
6 of 17 records
granted and in force at retrieval

35% in force at the cut-off date

6 of the 17 published records in this set were granted and still in force when the data was retrieved. The remaining records sit in other statuses that are not broken out individually, so no pending or lapsed count can be stated.

Source: legal status at retrieval, published records
Technology mix
72.7% of families
carry IPC subclass G06F

G06F on 8 of 8 families

G06F (electric digital data processing) is named on 8 of the 8 simple patent families in scope, the highest share of any subclass here. H04L (digital information transmission) follows on 3 of 11 families (27.3%). A family can carry both, so the two shares are not additive.

Source: IPC subclass breakdown, simple patent families
Filing offices
5 receiving offices
published records by office

WIPO (PCT) tops the office count

Across 17 published records, WIPO (PCT) received 5, United States 4, China 3, Europe (EPO) 3 and India 2. These counts record where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, and they sum to the record total rather than the family total.

Source: receiving-office breakdown, published records
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 serverless function cross-service message queue integration trigger patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Serverless Function Cross-Service Message Queue Integration Trigger Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this from here

This page is a starting point built from one search string. Narrowing or widening that string, or reading the granted claims directly, will change what shows up.

Pull the granted claims

A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Read the granted claim set of any family that matters to a specific design before drawing conclusions about what it covers.

Open in Eureka

Re-run with adjacent terms

At 11 families, this search is narrow enough that nearby terminology could surface additional relevant filings the current string misses.

Refine the search in Eureka

Track status changes

35% of the 17 records were in force at retrieval; legal status changes continuously, so a fresh pull closer to a filing decision will give a current picture.

Monitor in 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 Serverless Function Cross-Service Message Queue Integration Trigger Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Questions practitioners ask about this set

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Serverless Function Cross-Service Message Queue Integration Trigger Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Serverless Function Cross-Service Message Queue Integration Trigger Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole serverless function cross-service message queue integration trigger patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
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:((serverless OR "function as a service") AND ("message queue" OR "event queue") AND (integration OR trigger*))

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 72.7% 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 17 records and 11 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 8 of the 8 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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 (6 of 17). 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.