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/short-read-sequence-alignment-index-acceleration-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Patent Landscape SnapshotShort-Read Sequence Alignment Index Acceleration Patents
20 patent families and 64 records cover short-read alignment indexing; see the filer spread and filing history.
64
Published Records
20
Simple Patent Families
55%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
64 published records collapse into 20 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 35 of 64 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 20 simple patent families and 64 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search.
- Indian Institute of Science is named on 3 of the 20 families the highest single-row share at 15.0%, while 16 of the 17 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
- 55% of records (35 of 64) were granted and in force at the 2026-10-21 retrieval date.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This dataset gathers records matching a search for short-read sequence alignment or mapping against an index structure, specifically text mentioning short reads together with alignment or mapping, and an index, Burrows-Wheeler reference, or suffix array. The search string carries no date limit, so the records span whatever filing years the underlying documents happen to cover, not a chosen window. In scope are 20 simple patent families and 64 published records, the latter counting every publication of each family rather than de-duplicating across countries.
With only 20 families in scope, this is a small pool. The figures below describe what the search returned, not a map of a field or an industry; treat this page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished landscape.
Records vs. families in scope
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 17 of the 17 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 17 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 Short-Read Sequence Alignment Index Acceleration Algorithm 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
The Numbers
Filing history and technology split
Two views of the same 20 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)
Records run from 2013 through 2026, with a peak of 11 records in 2020. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the most recent years understate eventual counts 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.
Technology composition (share of 20 simple patent families)
G06F (Electric digital data processing) and G16B (Bioinformatics) each appear on 55.0% of the 20 families, and C12Q (measuring/testing involving enzymes or DNA) appears on 25.0%. A family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 20 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 Short-Read Sequence Alignment Index Acceleration Algorithm 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 Short-Read Sequence Alignment Index Acceleration Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about short-read sequence alignment index acceleration algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRecord In Focus
A record from the result set
As Filed
Hardware Acceleration of Short Read Mapping for Genomic and Other Types of Analyses
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.
A scalable FPGA-based solution to the short read mapping problem in DNA sequencing is disclosed which greatly accelerates the task of aligning short length reads to a known reference genome. A representative system comprises one or more memory circuits storing a plurality of short reads and a reference genome sequence; and one or more field programmable gate arrays configured to select a short read; to extract a plurality of seeds from the short read, each seed comprising a genetic subsequence of the short read; for each seed, to determine at least one candidate alignment location (CAL) in the reference genome sequence to form a plurality of CALs; for each CAL, to determine a likelihood of tThis is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, breadth or date. Its abstract is excerpted above; what its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself.
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 Short-Read Sequence Alignment Index Acceleration Algorithm 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 →Key Figures
Reading the dataset
Three figures from the search, reported as counted, not ranked, summed or interpreted.
Scope
20 families / 64 records
simple patent families vs. published records
Two different counts for the same pool
20 simple patent families are in scope, de-duplicated across countries. The same inventions produced 64 published records when every publication is counted separately, including re-publications in different offices.
No date limit was applied to the underlying search.
Largest filer
3 of 20 families (15.0%)
Indian Institute of Science
The highest single-row share in the listed filers
Indian Institute of Science is named on 3 of the 20 families in scope, a 15.0% share. This is a count of named families on one row; it says nothing about the scope of any claim or the standing of any filing.
17 entities are listed; filer rows are not summed on this page because they overlap.
Spread
16 of 17 filers hold ≤2 families
long tail among listed filers
Most listed filers hold one or two families
16 of the 17 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The list covers organisations only; filings by named individuals are excluded from it but remain in the total family and record counts.
The filer endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so this is not a complete filer list.
Legal status
35 of 64 records (55%)
granted and in force at retrieval
Status as of the 2026-10-21 retrieval date
35 of the 64 published records were granted and in force when the data was pulled. The remainder cover pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined status, which are not broken out separately on this page.
In-force status changes continuously and is not a measure of claim strength.
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 short-read sequence alignment index acceleration 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 Short-Read Sequence Alignment Index Acceleration Algorithm 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
Next Steps
Going beyond this snapshot
This page reports counts from one search string. A closer read of any filing, filer or claim requires pulling the underlying documents.
Pull the granted claims
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Read the claim set of any record before drawing a conclusion about scope.
Open Eureka →Check filer rows individually
Filer names here are not rolled up to corporate group, and rows overlap when a family names several filers. Treat each row as its own figure.
Open Eureka →Expand the search terms
With only 20 families and no date limit, this search string may be missing adjacent filings that use different terminology for the same technique.
Open 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 Short-Read Sequence Alignment Index Acceleration Algorithm 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
Questions practitioners ask
A search on short-read alignment or mapping against an index, Burrows-Wheeler reference or suffix array returns 20 simple patent families and 64 published records, with no date limit applied. The record count is higher than the family count because each invention can publish multiple times across offices. Because this reflects one search string, it should be treated as a sample of the documents that matched those terms rather than a complete count of everything filed in this area.
Indian Institute of Science is named on 3 of the 20 simple patent families in scope, the highest single-row share at 15.0%. Sixteen of the 17 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, and the filer list covers organisations only, filings by named individuals are excluded from the list but remain inside the total counts. The list also returns at most 100 entities, so it is not guaranteed to be the complete set of filers on this topic.
US20140297196A1, assigned to Micron Technology, Inc. and filed in 2014, describes an FPGA-based hardware system for accelerating short-read mapping: it extracts seeds from a short read, finds candidate alignment locations in a reference genome, and scores the likelihood of each candidate. This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by importance or citation count. An abstract and a family count cannot establish what the granted claims actually require, that has to be read from the claim set itself.
The filing trend in this dataset runs from 2013 to 2026 by published-record count, with a peak of 11 records in 2020. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, most recent years take 18 to 30 months to appear in full, so no growth or decline figure is shown here. With 20 families total, year-to-year movement in this dataset is too small a sample to read a trend from.
At the 2026-10-21 retrieval date, 35 of the 64 published records were granted and in force. The remaining records cover pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined status, and this page does not break those categories out individually. In-force status is a snapshot that changes continuously and is not a measure of a patent's scope, validity or commercial value, so it should not be read as a success rate.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Short-Read Sequence Alignment Index Acceleration Algorithm 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 Short-Read Sequence Alignment Index Acceleration Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole short-read sequence alignment index acceleration 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:(("short read" OR "short-read") AND (alignment OR mapping) AND (index OR "burrows-wheeler" OR "suffix array"))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 64 records and 20 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 17 of the 17 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 17 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 (35 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.