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 →318 patent families on GPS and sun-position tracker controllers.
638 published records collapse into 318 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. OMEGA PATENTS is named on 22 of the 318 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 In force = 204 of 638 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape is built from a search for records that combine GPS or a sun-position algorithm with tracker and controller terms. It returns 638 published records, which de-duplicate down to 318 simple patent families once filings of the same invention across multiple countries are collapsed. The search carries no date restriction, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in.
Readers should treat the family count as the measure of distinct inventions and the record count as the measure of publication activity, including repeat filings of the same invention in different receiving offices. The two numbers answer different questions and are not interchangeable.
Counted over all 638 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 513 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 (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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing-trend figures are counted in published records by earliest filing year; the technology composition is counted in simple patent families.
The trend peaks so far at 51 records in 2019. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so the recent years understate eventual volume 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 (513 records); the 638 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G01S (radar, sonar & positioning) appears on 21.4% of the 318 families in scope, ahead of every other subclass shown. Because one family can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not a partition of the dataset.
Shares are the percentage of the 318 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 controller gps-based sun position algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a vehicle tracker system built around a multi-adaptor controller: a position-determining device, a wireless communications device, a controller data link interface, a download learning port and a processor. The controller communicates geolocation data via the wireless device, and a data bus adaptor couples it to the vehicle's data communications bus using a set of proprietary remote function controller codes.This is simply the first record the search returns under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope, and this page does not attempt a freedom-to-operate reading.
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 from this dataset, reported without ranking or interpretation beyond what the numbers themselves state.
OMEGA PATENTS is named on 22 of the 318 simple patent families in scope, a 6.9% share. This is a single-row figure; filer rows are not summed elsewhere on this page because one family can name several filers.
85 of the 89 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed filers are organisations only; individually named inventors are excluded from this list but remain inside the 318-family total.
G01S (radar, sonar & positioning) is named on 68 of the 318 simple patent families, 21.4%. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, this share is not part of a 100% split across the technology chart.
204 of the 638 published records (32%) were granted and still in force at retrieval. The remaining records are a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable status that this page does not break out further.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to solar tracker controller gps-based sun position algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports counts and composition. Reading individual claim sets, tracking a specific filer's activity over time, or checking a particular design against granted claims calls for a closer pass through the underlying documents.
A family count says nothing about claim scope. Pulling the granted claims for the rows with the most families is the only way to see what they actually cover.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaRecords in this set were filed across 31 receiving offices. Following one family's filing history across offices shows where a specific invention sought protection.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaRecords from 2022 onward are still arriving. Revisiting the trend in a future quarter gives a fuller picture of that window than this snapshot does.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaThis search returns 638 published records, which collapse to 318 simple patent families once the same invention's filings across different countries are de-duplicated. The families figure is the better measure of distinct inventions, while the records figure reflects total publication activity including repeat filings of the same invention in multiple jurisdictions. The search string carries no date restriction, so this set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a fixed window.
OMEGA PATENTS is named on 22 of the 318 simple patent families in scope, a 6.9% share, the largest single-row figure in this dataset. That figure describes volume of named families only; it says nothing about claim scope, validity or commercial value, and filer names on this page are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and its subsidiaries would appear as separate rows. Beyond that single leading row, 85 of the 89 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is a long tail rather than a concentrated field.
The IPC classification carried by the largest share of families in this dataset is G01S, covering radar, sonar and positioning technology, which appears on 21.4% of the 318 families. Because a single family can carry several IPC classes, this share and the others shown on the technology chart add up to more than 100% and do not partition the dataset into exclusive buckets. The chart displays the full IPC spread the search returned, including subclasses this page does not discuss in prose.
204 of the 638 published records in this set, 32%, were granted and still in force at the retrieval date of 2026-10-21. The remainder is a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable status, which this page does not break down further. Legal status changes continuously and describes the record's standing at one point in time rather than a measure of quality or success.
The records in this set were filed across 31 receiving offices in total. The largest counts among those named are the United States with 223 records, India with 101, the WIPO PCT route with 74, China with 61, Europe (EPO) with 52 and Australia with 15. These figures are counted in published records, so one invention can appear multiple times across different offices, and the listed figures do not sum to the overall record total.
This page does not show a growth rate for this dataset: the series is too thin in its most recent years to support a reliable percentage. The filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, and records from 2022 onward are still arriving as later-filed applications publish, so the recent years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a decline. The highest point in the data so far is 51 records in 2019.
Go past this page: query the whole solar tracker controller gps-based sun position 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:(("GPS" OR "sun position algorithm") AND tracker AND controller)
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. No subclass carries much of this set: the most common one is on 21.4% of the patent families and the set spans 100 subclasses in all. That can mean the technology genuinely sits across several areas, or that the search string is also matching adjacent work that happens to use the same words. This page cannot separate the two, and the result set is not screened by hand.
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 638 records and 318 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 (204 of 638). 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