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/solid-state-drive-wear-leveling-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · High-Performance & Advanced ComputingSolid State Drive Wear Leveling Algorithm Patents
413 families and 1,162 records on SSD wear-leveling; SanDisk holds the largest single filer row at 8.5%, with a long tail across 88 filers.
1,162
Published Records
413
Simple Patent Families
8%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
54%
In Force at Cut-off
1,162 published records collapse into 413 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES LLC is named on 35 of the 413 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 In force = 622 of 1,162 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 413 simple patent families sit behind 1,162 published records in this search, with no date limit applied to the result set.
- SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES LLC is named on 35 of the 413 families the largest single row among 88 listed filers, 48 of whom hold two or fewer families each.
- G06F classification appears on 84.5% of the 413 families and G11C on 28.3%, the two subclasses this dataset supports discussing in detail.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Scope & method
What this search covers
This landscape is built from a search for records combining an SSD, flash-memory or solid state drive term with wear leveling (or wear-leveling) and either algorithm or controller in the same document. No date limit was applied, so the 413 simple patent families and 1,162 published records returned represent every matching record the database holds, not a fixed recent span.
Records are counted two ways on this page: by publication (1,162 records, useful for tracking filing activity and office coverage) and by invention (413 simple patent families, de-duplicated across the countries any single invention was filed in). The two numbers answer different questions and are kept separate throughout.
Records vs. families in this search
Counted over all 1,162 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 1,051 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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES LLC, SANDISK CORP). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (13 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 87 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 87 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 Solid State Drive Wear Leveling Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The numbers behind the field
Filing volume, technology split and legal status
These figures are drawn directly from the search result set: 1,162 published records collapsing into 413 simple patent families, spread across 21 receiving offices and 18 IPC subclasses.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (1,051 of 1,162 published records)
Published records peaked at 126 in 2009; 2018 to 2021 moved from 34 to 35 records (+3%), and records from 2022 onward are still filling in as they publish.
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 (1,051 records); the 1,162 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 84.5% of the 413 families in scope, and G11C (static & digital memories) on 28.3%; a family can carry both classes, so shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 413 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 Solid State Drive Wear Leveling Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Solid State Drive Wear Leveling Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about solid state drive wear leveling algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative record
A record from the result set
First record under default ordering
Solid state drive power safe wear-leveling
WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
A solid state drive includes a plurality of flash memory devices, and a memory controller coupled to the plurality of flash memory devices. The memory controller is configured to logically associate blocks from the plurality of flash memory devices to form zip codes, the zip codes associated with corresponding erase counters. The solid state drive further includes a processor and a computer-readable memory having instructions stored thereon. The processor may perform a wear-leveling operation by determining that blocks in a first zip code have been erased and incrementing a first erase counter associated with the first zip code. It may then be determined that a second erase counter associateAbstract as published; truncated where the source record is cut off. This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations or breadth of claim.
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 Solid State Drive Wear Leveling Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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 →Reading the dataset
What the filing data shows
Three figures from this search set the boundaries of what can be said about who files and where the technology concentrates.
Legal status
54%
of 1,162 records in force
Over half the record set is granted and in force at retrieval
622 of the 1,162 published records were granted and still in force as of the retrieval date of 2026-10-27. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further.
Legal status at retrieval, not a success or rejection rate.
Largest single filer row
8.5%
of 413 families (35 families)
SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES LLC holds the largest single row of the 87 listed filers
35 of the 413 simple patent families name SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES LLC, the largest single row returned among 88 listed filers. Two rows beginning 'Western Digital' and two beginning 'Super Talent' are listed separately and are not added together here, since filer names are not rolled up to a corporate group.
Counted in simple patent families, ordered by volume only.
Filer spread
47 of 87
listed filers hold ≤2 families
Most listed filers hold a small handful of families each
47 of the 87 listed filers hold two or fewer simple patent families each, while the listed rows as a group sum to 91% of the 413-family total, a figure that overlaps because one family can name several filers, so it is not a coverage percentage.
Rows cannot be summed into a combined share; one family can name multiple filers.
Technology split
84.5% / 28.3%
share of 413 families (G06F / G11C)
G06F and G11C carry the largest shares of the IPC mix
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 84.5% of the 413 families and G11C (static & digital memories) on 28.3%. A family can be classified under both, so these two shares add to more than 100% of the total.
IPC subclass shares are counted against the 413-family total, not against each other.
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 solid state drive wear leveling 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 Solid State Drive Wear Leveling Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Taking this further
The figures on this page describe what one search string returns. Narrowing or re-running that string, or pulling granted claims directly, is where a more specific read starts.
Pull the granted claims, not just abstracts
Family and abstract counts cannot establish claim scope. Where a specific filing matters to a design decision, the granted claim set has to be read directly.
Open Patsnap Eureka →Track the filer list beyond the top rows
The 87 listed filers include a long tail of 48 holding two or fewer families each; monitoring new entrants into that tail over time needs a live search, not a static snapshot.
Set up a filer watch in Patsnap Eureka →Re-run the string against adjacent terms
Small IPC subclasses in this result can reflect search-string noise as much as a genuine branch. Adjusting the Boolean terms and re-checking the subclass split is the way to tell those apart.
Refine this search in Patsnap 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 Solid State Drive Wear Leveling Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Questions practitioners ask
Frequently asked questions
This search returns 1,162 published records, which collapse into 413 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is de-duplicated. The search string requires an SSD, flash-memory or 'solid state drive' term together with 'wear leveling' or 'wear-leveling' and either 'algorithm' or 'controller' in the same record. No date limit is applied, so the figure covers every matching record the database holds, not a fixed recent window.
SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES LLC is named on 35 of the 413 families (8.5%), the largest single row among the 87 listed filers returned by this search. Filer names are not rolled up to a corporate group, so related-looking rows, such as two rows starting with 'Western Digital' or two starting with 'Super Talent', are listed and counted separately, and this page does not add them together. The list also drops to a long tail quickly: 47 of the 87 listed filers hold two or fewer families each.
The filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year and peaked at 126 records in 2009; from 2018 to 2021 the count moved from 34 to 35 records, a roughly 3% rise over that span. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in because of publication lag, up to 30 months for applications entering national phase, so those years understate the true count and should not be read as a decline. The series also counts documents, not de-duplicated inventions, so a flat or rising line can reflect wider filing of the same invention rather than more inventions.
The abstract of US8090899B1, assigned to Western Digital Technologies, Inc. and published 2012-01-03, describes an SSD controller that groups flash memory blocks into 'zip codes' associated with erase counters, incrementing a counter when blocks in a zip code are erased. It is simply the first record returned under this database's default ordering, not a ranking by citation count or influence. An abstract and a family count cannot establish what the granted claims actually require or how far they reach, that has to be read from the issued claim set itself.
Counted in published records, the United States received 745, followed by the WIPO PCT route with 100, the European Patent Office with 81, South Korea with 62, China with 47 and Taiwan with 31, out of 21 receiving offices returned in total. These figures are counted per record, not per family, so one invention filed in several offices adds a count at each one; they describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
Across the 87 listed filers, the largest single row holds 35 of 413 families (8.5%), and 47 of those 87 filers hold two or fewer families each, which is the clearest way this dataset shows how spread out filing is. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer, and the 87 listed rows already add up to more than the 413-family total if counted together. At 413 families, this is a moderate-sized pool, and conclusions about which branches are crowded or open should stay close to the figures given rather than extrapolate.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Solid State Drive Wear Leveling Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Solid State Drive Wear Leveling Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole solid state drive wear leveling 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:(("solid state drive" OR SSD OR "flash memory") AND ("wear leveling" OR "wear-leveling") AND (algorithm OR 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. One subclass (G06F) carries 84.5% 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 1,162 records and 413 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 (13 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 87 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 87 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, and the growth figure stops at 2021. 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 (622 of 1,162). 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.