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 →Analysis of 182 patent families on SIMD vectorization auto-scheduling for data parallel loops, covering filers, technology mix and filing activity.
359 published records collapse into 182 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION is named on 12 of the 182 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 In force = 138 of 359 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape is built from the search string TAC:((SIMD OR vectorization) AND loop AND (scheduling OR parallel)), run with no date restriction. It returns 359 published records, which de-duplicate to 182 simple patent families once filings for the same invention across multiple countries are merged. The gap between those two counts reflects how widely individual inventions were filed internationally, not how many separate inventions exist.
Legal status was checked at retrieval: 138 of the 359 records (38%) were granted and still in force at that date. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further.
Counted over all 359 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 279 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (7 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 93 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 93 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.
The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing-trend series counted in published records, and an IPC subclass breakdown counted in simple patent families.
The series runs from 8 records in 2007 to a peak of 33 records in 2014, with 20 recorded for 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications continue to publish, so that stretch of the chart 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 (279 records); the 359 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 147 of the 182 families in scope, 80.8% of the total. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC class, this and the other subclasses shown on the chart add up to more than 100% between them.
Shares are the percentage of the 182 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 simd vectorization auto-scheduling for data parallel loops patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a method for compiling SIMD code for parallel loops in a shared-memory system, identifying a loop as a parallel-loop candidate either through a user directive or through auto-parallelization, then selecting a trip count condition tied to a scheduling approach before generating versioned, scheduled SIMD code.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a most-cited, newest or broadest filing. It is shown to illustrate what the search string catches, not to represent the field as a whole.


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 →These figures come directly from the dataset described above. They report counts and shares; they do not rank filers by strength or infer strategy from portfolio size.
International Business Machines Corporation is named on 12 of the 182 simple patent families in scope, the highest single-row share in the listed filers. This is a count of named families, not a measure of claim scope or portfolio value, and it cannot be added to any other row's share.
Of the 93 listed filing entities, 80 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The remaining listed filers account for larger counts, down to 6 families at fifth place and 3 at tenth, but filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family may name several filers.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) is recorded on 147 of the 182 simple patent families, 80.8% of the total in scope. Other IPC subclasses appear on the dataset's chart at lower shares; because records can carry multiple classes, subclass shares add up to more than 100% in total.
At the 2026-10-27 retrieval date, 138 of the 359 published records (38%) were granted and still in force. The remaining 62% spans pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable statuses that are not broken out individually in this dataset.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to simd vectorization auto-scheduling for data parallel loops patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures on this page are a starting point for a closer read of specific filings or filers.
Family and record counts describe filing volume, not claim scope. Decisions about freedom to operate require pulling the granted claim set for any specific filing of interest.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaThe listed filers cover 93 entities out of a field that also includes individual inventors not shown in this table. A targeted search can surface filers and filings this summary does not display.
Open Patsnap EurekaThis search returns 359 published records, which consolidate to 182 simple patent families once filings for the same invention across multiple countries are merged. The search string carries no date restriction, so this set spans every matching record the database holds, not a fixed recent window. Families are the better unit for counting distinct inventions; records count every national or regional publication of each one separately.
International Business Machines Corporation is named on 12 of the 182 simple patent families in scope, 6.6% of the total and the highest single-row share among the 93 listed filing entities. That figure describes filing volume only; it says nothing about the scope, validity or commercial strength of any individual claim. Filer rows in this dataset cannot be added together, since a single family can name more than one filer.
Of the 93 listed filers, 80 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each, which is the clearest single figure for how spread out this field is. The filer with the most families holds 12, fifth place holds 6, and tenth place holds 3. Because filer rows overlap when a family names multiple parties, there is no reliable combined share for any group of top filers, and none should be inferred from this page.
US8341615B2, assigned to International Business Machines Corporation and published 2012-12-25, describes a method for generating SIMD code for parallel loops in a shared-memory system, using loop-candidate identification, trip-count condition selection and scheduling-based versioning. This is the abstract only, shown because it is the first record the database returns under its default ordering, not because it is the most cited or broadest filing in the set. What the granted claims actually require, and how far they reach, can only be established by reading the claim set itself.
The filing trend, counted in published records by earliest filing year, runs from 8 in 2007 to a peak of 33 in 2014 and shows 20 for 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still in the publication pipeline, typically taking 18 to 30 months to appear, so recent years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a falling trend. The series also counts documents, not inventions, so a rise can reflect the same invention being filed in more countries rather than more distinct inventions.
G06F, Electric digital data processing, is recorded on 147 of the 182 simple patent families in this dataset, 80.8% of the total in scope. Because a single family can carry multiple IPC classes, this share and the shares of other subclasses shown on the page's chart add up to more than 100% when combined. G06F's share is the only subclass figure in this dataset large enough to characterise with confidence.
Go past this page: query the whole simd vectorization auto-scheduling for data parallel loops 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:((SIMD OR vectorization) AND loop AND (scheduling OR parallel))
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 80.8% 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 359 records and 182 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 (7 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 93 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 93 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 2026-10-27.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (138 of 359). 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.
This page