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 →14 patent families on solar tracker backtracking shading algorithms, with filers, IPC mix and filing history to 2026.
45 published records collapse into 14 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 18 of 45 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This search isolates records where backtracking or back-tracking algorithms are described alongside a solar tracker or PV tracker and a reference to shading or shadow. That combination targets a specific control problem: adjusting tracker tilt angle so that adjacent rows do not cast shadows on each other at low sun angles. The search carries no date limit, so the 14 families and 45 published records returned reflect every matching document the search string found, not a fixed historical window.
At 14 simple patent families, this is a small pool. The figures below describe what the search returned, who filed, which classifications recur, and how the records are spread across offices, and should be read as a starting point for a closer search rather than a map of the field.
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 10 of the 10 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 10 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Two views of the same 14 families: when the underlying applications were first filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Records run from a single filing in 2010 to a peak of 13 in 2021, with the count easing off from 2022 onward as recent filings are still publishing. That recent stretch is shaded on the chart and should not be read as a drop in filing activity.
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.
H02S (photovoltaic / solar power generation) appears on 78.6% of the 14 families, the highest share of any subclass. F24S (solar heat collectors) and H01L (semiconductor devices) each appear on 35.7%, and G05D (control of non-electric variables) on 28.6%. Because a family can carry more than one subclass, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 14 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 solar tracker backtracking row shading avoidance algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes methods of operating a solar power plant: providing initial three-dimensional mapping information for tracker rows, measuring observed shading, comparing it to an expected shading value derived from that mapping, and calculating corrected position values for the tracker rows. It also describes observing shading and light patterns across a tracker array to correct the three-dimensional position data used for the trackers.Filed by NEXTPOWER LLC, published 2026-09-03 as US20260261239A1. Shown here because it is the first record the database returns for this search, not because it is the most cited or broadest filing in the set.
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 →Three figures worth checking before treating this set as complete.
Nevados Engineering Inc and NextPower LLC are each named on 3 of the 14 families, the highest count among the listed filers. The tenth-ranked listed filer is named on 1 family. Rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer.
18 of the 45 published records were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remaining records fall into pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined categories that are not broken out separately here.
Of the six receiving offices returned by this search, the United States office carries 21 of the 45 published records, ahead of WIPO (PCT) at 7, Australia and EPO at 6 each, India at 4 and South Korea at 1. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
H02S (photovoltaic / solar power generation) is attached to 11 of the 14 families, 78.6%. F24S and H01L each sit at 35.7%, and G05D at 28.6%. A family can carry several subclasses, so these percentages overlap rather than sum to 100%.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to solar tracker backtracking row shading avoidance algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a starting point built from one search string. The steps below help turn it into a working picture for a specific question.
An abstract and a family count cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Read the claim set for any record that matters to a design or filing decision.
Open a record searchA 14-family pool is thin enough that near-miss terminology can sit outside this search entirely. Try variant phrasing for backtracking, row spacing or tilt-angle control to check for records this string did not catch.
Refine the search in EurekaFiler names here are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and its subsidiaries can appear as separate rows. Verify any name you plan to rely on against the original filing.
Review filer detailsThis search returned 14 simple patent families and 45 published records matching backtracking or back-tracking language combined with solar/PV tracker terms and shading or shadow references. A family groups related filings for the same invention across countries, while a published record counts each publication separately, so the two numbers are not interchangeable. The search carries no date limit, so this reflects everything the string matched rather than a fixed historical period.
The listed filers include organisations such as Nevados Engineering Inc and NextPower LLC, which are tied at 3 families each, the highest count among the filers returned. Other listed entities include Soltec Innovations SL, Mahindra Susten, GameChange Solar Corp, Nextracker LLC, Inspired Solar Tech, SunPower Inc, Hankook Chain Motor and OMCO Solar LLC, each on fewer families. This list excludes filings held by named individuals, who are still counted in the 14-family total but not broken out by name, and the list itself is not a complete record of every filer that has ever touched this space.
Based on the example record in this dataset, a backtracking algorithm adjusts the tilt angle of tracker rows at low sun angles so that one row's shadow does not fall on an adjacent row, which would otherwise cut output from the shaded modules. The example record describes comparing an observed amount of shading against an expected amount, calculated from three-dimensional mapping of the tracker array, and using the difference to correct the tracker's position data. Specific implementations vary by filer and by the sensing method used to detect shading, which this dataset does not break out in detail.
Of the 45 published records in this dataset, 18 (40%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remaining records sit across pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined status, which are not separated out individually in this dataset. In-force status reflects a snapshot at the retrieval date and changes continuously as applications prosecute or patents expire, so it should not be read as a measure of how many filings succeeded.
Counted by published records, the United States receiving office carries 21 of the 45 records, more than any of the other five offices returned. WIPO (PCT) follows with 7, Australia and the European Patent Office each with 6, India with 4, and South Korea with 1. This reflects where applications entered national or regional phase, not where any filer is headquartered, since this dataset holds no nationality information for filers.
Go past this page: query the whole solar tracker backtracking row shading avoidance algorithm 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:((backtrack* OR "back-tracking") AND ("solar tracker" OR "PV tracker") AND (shading OR shadow))
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 (H02S) carries 78.6% 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 45 records and 14 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 10 of the 10 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 10 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 (18 of 45). 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.
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