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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/shared-memory-multi-threaded-software-architecture-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Software & Distributed SystemsShared Memory Multi-Threaded Software Architecture Patents
481 patent families and 1,177 records on shared-memory, multi-threaded synchronization, led by one filer at 10.2% share.
1,177
Published Records
481
Simple Patent Families
10%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
36%
In Force at Cut-off
1,177 published records collapse into 481 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION is named on 49 of the 481 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 In force = 423 of 1,177 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 481 simple patent families and 1,177 published records sit behind this search, with no date limit applied, so the set spans every matching record the string returns.
- International Business Machine Corporation is named on 49 of the 481 families (10.2%), the highest single-row share among the 89 listed filers.
- 64 of the 89 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, while G06F covers 87.5% of the 481 families in scope.
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This landscape is built from a search string targeting shared memory or multi-threaded architectures combined with synchronization across threads. It returns 481 simple patent families (1,177 published records once every national and regional filing is counted separately). No date limit was applied, so the set reflects every record the string matches rather than a fixed window.
Of the 1,177 published records, 423 (36%) were granted and still in force at retrieval. That figure describes legal status at a single point in time across a mix of jurisdictions and record ages; it is not a measure of how many filings in this space succeed.
Scope at a glance
Counted over all 1,177 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 859 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 (MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC, MICROSOFT CORP). 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 (11 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 89 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 89 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 Shared Memory Multi-Threaded Software Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
The chart below plots published records by earliest filing year, and the IPC breakdown shows where those records cluster by subclass.
Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (859 of 1,177 published records)
Recorded filings run from 35 published records in 2007 to a peak of 78 in 2012, then down to 17 by 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish on their usual lag, so that recent stretch understates the eventual count 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 2007-2026 (859 records); the 1,177 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition (IPC subclass share)
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 421 of the 481 families in scope, 87.5%. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC subclass, this and the other subclass shares shown on the chart add up to more than 100% of the family total.
Shares are the percentage of the 481 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 Shared Memory Multi-Threaded Software Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Shared Memory Multi-Threaded Software Architecture Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about shared memory multi-threaded software architecture patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
A record from the result set
Example record
Lightweight thread synchronization using shared memory state
RED HAT ISRAEL, LTD.
The abstract describes an operating system that exposes a memory mapping interface and runs a first and second thread. A supervisor maps a memory page storing the first thread's execution state to a location the second thread can access; the first thread stores a request in shared memory, the second thread polls that memory to execute it, and the supervisor updates the execution state accordingly.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, grant date or scope. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, not from this abstract or from any family 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.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Shared Memory Multi-Threaded Software Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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
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 →Insights
Reading the filer and technology figures
These cards report figures directly from the dataset. They describe what was counted and in what unit; they do not rank strategy or infer ownership beyond the single row each figure is drawn from.
Top filer share
10.2%
of 481 families
Largest single-row share
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 49 of the 481 simple patent families in scope (10.2%). This is a single-row figure; related-looking rows elsewhere in the listed filers are not added to it.
Counted in simple patent families
Long tail
64 of 89
listed filers
Filers holding 2 or fewer families
Of the 89 listed filers, 64 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The data endpoint returns at most 100 entities and individual-named filers are excluded from this list, so this describes the listed organisations, not every filer behind the 481 families.
Counted in simple patent families
Technology concentration
87.5%
of 481 families
G06F subclass share
421 of the 481 families in scope carry the G06F subclass (Electric digital data processing), 87.5%. Because a family can carry multiple IPC subclasses, this share does not represent 87.5% of a fixed partition; the other 31 subclasses in the data are not detailed here.
Counted in simple patent families
Legal status
36%
of 1,177 records
Granted and in force
423 of the 1,177 published records (36%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-21 retrieval date. This is a status snapshot that shifts over time, not a measure of filing quality or success rate.
Counted in 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 shared memory multi-threaded software architecture patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Shared Memory Multi-Threaded Software Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this from here
The figures above describe counts and shares at the family and record level. Turning them into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means reading the underlying claim sets directly.
Pull the granted claims that matter to your design
A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Before concluding anything about a specific architecture, read the granted claims of the records closest to it.
Explore in Patsnap Eureka →Track how the listed filers' portfolios sit relative to each other
The 89 listed filers are ordered by family count only, with no rollup to corporate group. Use that ordering as a starting point for deeper per-entity review, not as a finished ranking.
Explore in Patsnap 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 Shared Memory Multi-Threaded Software Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on this dataset
This search returns 481 simple patent families, which correspond to 1,177 published records once every national and regional filing for the same invention is counted separately. No date limit was applied, so this reflects every matching record the search string returns rather than a fixed period. Family counts and record counts measure different things, use families to count inventions and records to count publications.
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 49 of the 481 simple patent families in scope, the highest single-row share at 10.2%. Two other rows in the listed filers share a name root with each other (Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC and Microsoft Corp; Oracle American Inc and Oracle Int Corp) but are not merged or summed on this page. Beyond the top rows, 64 of the 89 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which indicates a long tail rather than concentration beyond the leading row.
The trend counts published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated inventions, running from 35 records in 2007 up to a peak of 78 in 2012 and down to 17 by 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing on their normal lag of roughly 18 to 30 months, so that recent stretch is understated and should not be read as a drop in filing activity. Because the same invention can file in multiple countries, a rising or falling count on this chart reflects documents, not inventions.
421 of the 481 simple patent families, 87.5%, carry the G06F subclass covering electric digital data processing. Because one family can carry several IPC subclasses, this share is not a slice of a 100% pie; it simply states how many of the families touch that classification. The dataset lists 32 subclasses in total, but only this one sits at a scale worth describing on its own here.
No. This page reports family counts, record counts and abstracts, none of which establish what a granted claim actually covers. Claim scope has to be read from the granted claim set and its prosecution history, and equivalents can extend a claim beyond its literal wording, so an abstract-level comparison cannot clear or implicate any design. Treat every figure here as a map of where filings sit, not as a freedom-to-operate opinion.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Shared Memory Multi-Threaded Software Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Shared Memory Multi-Threaded Software Architecture Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole shared memory multi-threaded software architecture patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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:(("shared memory" OR "multi-threaded") AND synchroniz* AND thread)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 87.5% 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 1,177 records and 481 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 (11 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 89 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 89 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 2026-10-21.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (423 of 1,177). 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.