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/ship-hull-form-optimization-using-genetic-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Marine & Offshore EngineeringShip Hull Form Optimization Using Genetic Algorithm Patents
277 families and 328 records span hull-form genetic-algorithm patents, with two filers tied at the top on 20 families each.
328
Published Records
277
Simple Patent Families
7%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
34%
In Force at Cut-off
328 published records collapse into 277 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. WUHAN UNIV OF TECH is named on 20 of the 277 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 In force = 113 of 328 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 277 simple patent families and 328 published records sit behind this search, with no date limit applied to the underlying string.
- Two filers, Wuhan Univ of Tech and Harbin Eng Univ, are tied at the top of the ranking, each on 20 of the 277 families, with 82 of the 99 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families each.
- G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on the highest share of families, 58.8% of the 277 in scope, ahead of G06F at 41.5% and G06Q at 38.6%.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This landscape is built from a search for records that combine a hull or ship term with the phrase genetic algorithm and either an optimization or form term. No date limit is applied, so the 277 simple patent families and 328 published records returned span every matching record the database holds for that combination, not a fixed recent window.
Filer names in the underlying list are not rolled up to a corporate parent, so a university and any related institute, or a group company and its separately filed subsidiary, appear as distinct rows. The filer list also excludes filings held only by named individuals, even though those filings remain inside every total and share figure on this page.
Scope at a glance
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 (1 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 99 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 99 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 Ship Hull Form Optimization Using Genetic Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data & Trends
Filing trend and technology composition
The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing trend counted in published records, and an IPC technology split counted in simple patent families.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)
Published records tied to this search string run from 1 in 2008 to a peak so far of 74 in 2025, before record counts from 2022 onward are shown shaded on the chart because they are still publishing in and will rise as later filings come through.
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 2008-2026 (319 records); the 328 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 58.8% of the 277 simple patent families in scope, ahead of G06F (electric digital data processing) at 41.5% and G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) at 38.6%. 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 277 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 Ship Hull Form Optimization Using Genetic Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Ship Hull Form Optimization Using Genetic Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about ship hull form optimization using genetic algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaPatent Example
A record from this result set
First record returned
Apparatus for determining an optimal route of a maritime ship
O.M. OFFSHORE MONITORING LIMITED
An apparatus for determining an optimal route of a maritime ship includes a database configured to store a service speed of the maritime ship. The apparatus further includes a processor configured to generate a plurality of state nodes, to determine a plurality of time sets, to append the plurality of time sets to the plurality of state nodes to obtain a plurality of appended state nodes, to generate a plurality of edges based on the plurality of appended state nodes, to generate a graph based on the plurality of appended state nodes and the plurality of edges, to apply a preliminarily generated optimal route algorithm on the graph to obtain a preliminarily defined route path, and to apply a...This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default order, not a ranking by citations or breadth. It is shown to illustrate what one record in this set actually claims, from its abstract only.
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 Ship Hull Form Optimization Using Genetic Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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 →Key Figures
What the numbers show
Four figures from this search, reported as counted, no ranking judgement added.
Scope
277 families / 328 records
simple patent families / published records
Two counting units, same search
The search string returns 328 published records, which de-duplicate to 277 simple patent families once the same invention filed across multiple countries is collapsed to one. No date limit is applied to the string, so this spans every matching record the database holds rather than a fixed recent window.
Counted at retrieval, 2026-10-15
Filer concentration
20 families (tied)
top count, shared by 2 filers
A tie at the top, then a long tail
Wuhan Univ of Tech and Harbin Eng Univ are both named on 20 of the 277 simple patent families, so no single filer holds the largest count alone. Of the 99 listed filers, 82 hold 2 or fewer families each; filer rows are never summed because one family can name more than one filer.
Filer rows ordered by volume only, not rolled up to corporate group
Technology split
58.8% of families
G06N share of 277 families
AI-model computing carries the largest IPC share
G06N (computing based on AI models) is named on 163 of the 277 simple patent families (58.8%), ahead of G06F at 41.5% and G06Q at 38.6%. A family can carry more than one of these classes, so the shares add up to more than 100% and are not a partition of the set.
IPC shares counted against the 277-family total
Legal status
34% in force
of 328 published records
A third of records were in force at retrieval
113 of the 328 published records (34%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remainder are a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable statuses not broken out in this dataset, and the figure is a snapshot rather than a measure of filing success.
Status as at retrieval date, 2026-10-15
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 ship hull form optimization using genetic algorithm 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 Ship Hull Form Optimization Using Genetic Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps
Where to take this next
The figures above describe what this search returns. Narrowing the question or pulling full claim sets is where Patsnap Eureka comes in.
Check claim scope directly
Family counts and abstracts describe what a record discusses, not what its granted claims require or exclude. Pull the claim set for any record that matters to a specific design before drawing conclusions about it.
Open a record in EurekaTrack the filing window as it fills in
Published records from 2022 onward are still arriving, so the most recent years understate eventual totals. Revisit the trend periodically rather than reading a single snapshot as the final shape.
Set up trend monitoringCompare filers row by row
With 82 of 99 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families each, and the top count tied at 20, differences between individual filers are worth reading one row at a time rather than as a combined group.
Explore filer profilesSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Ship Hull Form Optimization Using Genetic Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this patent set
This search returns 328 published records, which collapse to 277 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. The search string requires a hull or ship term together with the phrase genetic algorithm and either an optimization or form term, with no date limit applied, so the figure reflects every matching record the database holds rather than a fixed recent window. Readers should treat 277 as the family count and 328 as the published-record count, since the two are not interchangeable.
Wuhan Univ of Tech and Harbin Eng Univ are tied at the top with 20 simple patent families each out of 277 in scope, so neither is a single named leader on this dataset. Beyond that pair, the field thins quickly: 82 of the 99 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows are not summed into group totals here because one family can name more than one filer, and names are not rolled up to corporate parent, so related-looking entries are listed and read separately.
The IPC subclasses with the highest shares of the 277 families are G06N (computing based on AI models) at 58.8%, G06F (electric digital data processing) at 41.5%, and G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) at 38.6%. Because a single family can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should be read individually rather than summed. The dataset lists 45 subclasses in total, and the page focuses commentary on the classes with the largest shares.
Counted in published records, China accounts for 258 of the filings returned, followed by the United States at 20, the European Patent Office and WIPO's PCT route each at 8, South Korea at 6, and Australia at 5. The search returned 16 receiving offices in total, and these figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, since this dataset carries no nationality information. The six offices listed are the largest, not the full set of 16.
At the retrieval date, 113 of the 328 published records (34%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records are a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable statuses that are not broken out individually in this dataset. This figure is a snapshot of legal status on the retrieval date rather than a measure of filing quality or a success rate, and it will keep shifting as pending applications are examined and granted rights age toward expiry.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Ship Hull Form Optimization Using Genetic Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Ship Hull Form Optimization Using Genetic Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole ship hull form optimization using genetic algorithm 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:((hull OR ship) AND "genetic algorithm" AND (optimiz* OR form))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 328 records and 277 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 (1 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 99 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 99 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 2026-10-15.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (113 of 328). 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.