https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/speech-rate-time-scale-modification-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Speech & Audio Processing

Speech Rate Time-Scale Modification Algorithm Patents

343 patent families and 737 records cover speech rate time-scale modification.

737
Published Records
343
Simple Patent Families
5%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
28%
In Force at Cut-off

737 published records collapse into 343 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. SOFTBANK GROUP CORP is named on 17 of the 343 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 In force = 207 of 737 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 343 simple patent families and 737 published records sit behind this search, with no date limit set on the query itself.
  • SoftBank Group Corp is named on 17 of the 343 families, the highest single-row share at 5.0%.
  • 71 of the 95 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, pointing to a long tail of small-volume entrants.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This landscape is built from a search string targeting time-scale modification, speech rate and time compression techniques applied to speech, combined with pitch, playback or modification terms. The result set holds 343 simple patent families (one per invention, de-duplicated across the countries it was filed in) and 737 published records (one per publication). No date limit was set on the query, so the result spans whatever filing years the matching text happens to carry.

Legal status is known at the record level: 207 of the 737 records (28%) were granted and still in force at retrieval. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated out further here.

Families vs. published records in scope
  1. SOFTBANK GROUP CORP17
  2. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION13
  3. MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC8
  4. MOTOROLA INC7
  5. PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORP7
  6. SYMBIOSIS INT DEEMED UNIV4
  7. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS INC4
  8. CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY3
  9. SPEECH MORPHING SYST3
  10. GOOGLE LLC3

Counted over all 737 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 481 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 (5 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 95 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 95 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 Speech Rate Time Scale Modification 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

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

The two views below use different units: the filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, while the technology split counts simple patent families against the IPC subclasses stamped on them.

Published records by earliest filing year, 2007–2026 (481 of 737 published records)

The series opens at 13 records in 2007 and runs to a peak of 74 in 2026 so far. Records from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart: publication lag of up to 30 months for PCT filings means these recent years are still filling in, and no growth rate is stated here because the trend cannot be read reliably through that window.

Published records by earliest filing year, 2007–2026 (481 of 737 published records)020406080132007200920112013201520172019202120232025742022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

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 (481 records); the 737 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass coverage across 343 simple patent families

G10L (speech and audio analysis/synthesis) appears on 245 of the 343 families, 71.4% of the set. G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 79 families, 23.0%. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to over 100%, and the chart shows additional subclasses below this pair at smaller shares.

IPC subclass coverage across 343 simple patent familiesG10L · Speech & audio analysis/synthe…24571.4%G06F · Electric digital data processi…7923.0%G06N · Computing based on AI models5014.6%A61B · Diagnosis & surgery4814.0%G16H · Healthcare informatics339.6%G09B · Educational & demonstration ai…298.5%H04M · Telephonic communication298.5%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…277.9%Other18453.6%

Shares are the percentage of the 343 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 Speech Rate Time Scale Modification 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 Speech Rate Time Scale Modification Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about speech rate time scale modification algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

A record from this result set

First record returned
US5341432A1994-08-23

Apparatus and method for performing speech rate modification and improved fidelity

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

The abstract describes a speech rate modification system in which correlation functions between segments of an input speech signal are computed, the signal amplitude is controlled by two multipliers applying increasing and decreasing window functions, the multiplier outputs are added at a relative delay chosen to maximise the correlation function, and the input signal and the adder output are selected accordingly.This is simply the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish that.

US5341432A, patent drawing 1US5341432A, patent drawing 2
View record

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 Speech Rate Time Scale Modification 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
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 →
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 →
Patterns in the data

What the filer and geography figures show

These figures describe counts returned by the search, not a ranking of quality, strength or strategy.

Largest single filer
17 families
SoftBank Group Corp

One filer at 5.0% of 343 families

SoftBank Group Corp is named on 17 of the 343 simple patent families in scope, a 5.0% share. This is the single highest row in the filer list; it says nothing about the scope or value of the claims behind those families.

Counted in simple patent families
Filer spread
71 of 95
listed filers

Most listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

Of the 95 organisations returned in the filer list, 71 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filer rows are not summed into a combined share anywhere on this page, because one family can name more than one filer and the rows overlap.

Counted in simple patent families; individuals excluded from this list where they can be identified
Receiving offices
22 offices
where records were filed

United States and India carry the largest record counts

Across 22 receiving offices in total, the United States shows 298 published records and India 108, with Europe (EPO), WIPO (PCT), Canada and Japan also among the larger counts. These figures are counted per office a record was filed in, not per invention, so they sum to more than the family total.

Counted in published records, one mark per office filed in
Legal status
28%
in force at retrieval

207 of 737 records were in force at the cut-off

At the 2026-10-27 retrieval date, 207 of the 737 published records (28%) were granted and still in force. This is a snapshot of legal status, not a measure of how many filings succeeded, since the remaining records span several different outcomes that are not broken out separately.

Counted in published records, status at retrieval date
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 speech rate time scale modification algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Speech Rate Time Scale Modification 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
Where to go from here

Digging further into this set

The figures above describe the shape of the result set. Tracing any single family's claims or checking a filer's full portfolio needs a closer read than counts alone can give.

Read the granted claims directly

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent actually blocks. Pulling the granted claim set for any family of interest is the only way to assess scope.

Explore in Patsnap Eureka

Track a filer's filing pattern over time

The filer list here is a snapshot ordered by volume. Following how a single row's filings have built up year over year can surface more than the count alone.

Explore 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 Speech Rate Time Scale Modification 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
FAQ

Questions about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Speech Rate Time Scale Modification 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 Speech Rate Time Scale Modification Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole speech rate time scale modification algorithm patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
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:(("time-scale modification" OR "speech rate" OR "time compression") AND speech AND (pitch OR playback OR modification))

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 (G10L) carries 71.4% 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 737 records and 343 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 (5 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 95 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 95 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 (207 of 737). 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.