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/speech-recognition-output-error-correction-post-processing-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · AI & Machine LearningSpeech Recognition Output Error Correction Post-Processing Patents
380 patent families cover ASR error-correction post-processing; the largest filer holds 16 families and 72 of 96 listed filers hold two or fewer.
563
Published Records
380
Simple Patent Families
4%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
36%
In Force at Cut-off
563 published records collapse into 380 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. SOFTBANK GROUP CORP is named on 16 of the 380 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 In force = 200 of 563 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 380 simple patent families and 563 published records sit in scope for this search string. Covering speech-recognition error correction and post-processing matched against neural or model terms.
- SOFTBANK GROUP CORP is named on 16 of the 380 families, the highest single-row count returned. 72 of the 96 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
- G10L, the speech and audio analysis/synthesis subclass, appears on 83.4% of the 380 families. G06F (electric digital data processing) follows at 43.2% and G06N (AI-model computing) at 23.4%.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This landscape draws on a search for "speech recognition" or ASR combined with "error correction" or "post-processing" and neural or model terms across patent titles, abstracts and claims. It returns 563 published records, which de-duplicate to 380 simple patent families once filings of the same invention across multiple countries are collapsed. The search string carries no date limit, so the result set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a fixed window chosen for this page.
Because the search string matches on text rather than a curated classification, some of the smaller technology branches it returns are likely to include unrelated matches alongside genuine error-correction filings. The subclasses discussed below are the ones that carry a large enough share of the 380 families to read with confidence; smaller branches are shown on the chart but not characterised in prose.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 563 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 462 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 share the name IFLYTEK (IFLYTEK CO LTD, Anhui iFlytek Huanyu Technology Co., Ltd.). 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (4 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 96 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 96 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 Recognition Output Error Correction Post-Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data
Filing activity and technology composition
The figures below are drawn directly from the search result set: a filing-trend series counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (462 of 563 published records)
Published records by earliest filing year run from 7 in 2007 to a tracked peak of 65 in 2025, with 33 recorded so far for 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still arriving as they work through publication, so the right-hand edge of this chart understates eventual totals 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 (462 records); the 563 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass composition
G10L (speech and audio analysis/synthesis) appears on 317 of the 380 families (83.4%), G06F (electric digital data processing) on 164 (43.2%), and G06N (computing based on AI models) on 89 (23.4%). A family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add to more than 100%; the remaining subclasses among the 38 returned sit at smaller shares and are shown on the chart only.
Shares are the percentage of the 380 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 Recognition Output Error Correction Post-Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Speech Recognition Output Error Correction Post-Processing Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about speech recognition output error correction post-processing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing
A record from the result set
From the result set
Joint ASR and speaker error correction post-processing
AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
The abstract describes speaker error correction performed as a post-processing task on aligned predicted words and predicted speaker identities. The process includes performing predicted speaker error correction on the aligned output to generate a first corrected set of speaker error corrections for the predicted speaker identifiers.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 the kind of claim language this search string matches, not as representative of the field.
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 Recognition Output Error Correction Post-Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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 →Signals in the data
What the counts show
Three figures from this result set are worth reading carefully, each with the limit on what it can and cannot establish.
Filer concentration
16 of 380
largest single-row family count
Top row holds 4.2% of families
SOFTBANK GROUP CORP is named on 16 of the 380 simple patent families in scope (4.2%). Two listed rows share a leading name (ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM RES INST and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD) but are listed and counted separately; filer rows are not summed on this page because one family can name several filers.
Single-row share, not a combined total
Long tail
72 of 96
listed filers with 2 or fewer families
Most listed filers hold one or two families
72 of the 96 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows (which exclude individual filers, still counted in the totals) sum to 58% of the 380 families, but that sum cannot be read as a coverage or concentration share because the underlying rows overlap.
Counted in simple patent families
Technology split
83.4%
of families carrying G10L
G10L appears on the largest share of families
G10L (speech and audio analysis/synthesis) is present on 317 of the 380 families (83.4%), ahead of G06F at 43.2% and G06N at 23.4%. Because one family can carry multiple IPC subclasses, these shares add to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive groupings.
IPC shares, each against the 380-family total
Legal status
200 of 563
records granted and in force
36% of records are in force at retrieval
200 of the 563 published records (36%) were granted and in force at the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remaining records fall into pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined status, which are not broken out separately on this page.
Status snapshot at retrieval, not a success rate
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 recognition output error correction post-processing 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 Speech Recognition Output Error Correction Post-Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Going from counts to claims
The figures on this page describe volume and composition. Reading what any single filing actually covers, or where a design stands against it, requires the granted claim text itself.
Read the granted claims directly
A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Where a specific filing matters to a design decision, pull its granted claim set and prosecution history before drawing any conclusion about what it covers.
Explore full families in EurekaTrack filers beyond the top rows
72 of the 96 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so most of the activity in this dataset sits outside the handful of larger rows. Monitoring new filings from this wider set may surface filers not yet visible in a volume ranking.
Set up filer alerts in EurekaWatch the incomplete years fill in
Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing, so the recent end of the filing trend will keep rising as more filings clear the publication lag. Re-checking this window periodically gives a truer read than taking the current counts as final.
Monitor filing trends in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Speech Recognition Output Error Correction Post-Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions
This search returns 563 published records, which collapse to 380 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is de-duplicated. The search string matches on terms like ASR, error correction, post-processing, neural and model, so it captures a broad text pattern rather than a fixed legal category. There is no date limit on the search, so the result set spans whatever filing years the matching records fall in rather than a window chosen for this page.
SOFTBANK GROUP CORP is named on 16 of the 380 simple patent families in scope, the highest count of any single row in the listed filers. The list returns 96 entities counted in families, of which 72 hold 2 or fewer families each, so filing activity outside the largest rows is spread thinly. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, and two rows sharing a leading name (ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM RES INST and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD) are listed and must be read separately, not added together.
IPC subclass G10L (speech and audio analysis/synthesis) appears on 317 of the 380 families, 83.4%, the largest share of the set. G06F (electric digital data processing) follows at 43.2% and G06N (computing based on AI models) at 23.4%; because a single family can carry several IPC codes, these shares add to more than 100%. The dataset returns 38 subclasses in total, but only these three carry a large enough share to characterise with confidence.
A growth rate is not shown on this page because the recent years of the filing trend are still filling in: records filed from 2022 onward have not all cleared the publication lag, which runs up to roughly 30 months for some filing routes. The tracked peak so far is 65 published records in 2025, with 33 recorded for 2026 to date, but these recent-year counts will rise as more filings publish. Reading a decline or an acceleration out of the most recent years would be reading an artefact of publication timing rather than a real change.
200 of the 563 published records, 36%, were granted and in force as of the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remaining records fall into categories such as pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed, which are not broken out individually in this dataset. This figure is a snapshot of legal status at one point in time, not a measure of the quality or success rate of the filings.
US12614552B1, assigned to Amazon Technologies, Inc. and filed with a 2026-04-28 date, describes speaker error correction performed as a post-processing step on aligned predicted words and predicted speaker identities to generate a corrected set of speaker identifications. This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering for this search, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set, and it should not be taken as representative of the field. What its granted claims actually require, and how broadly they reach, can only be established by reading the claim set itself, not from this abstract or any family count.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Speech Recognition Output Error Correction Post-Processing Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Speech Recognition Output Error Correction Post-Processing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole speech recognition output error correction post-processing 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:(("speech recognition" OR ASR) AND ("error correction" OR "post-processing") AND (neural OR model))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 83.4% 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 563 records and 380 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 (4 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 96 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 96 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 (200 of 563). 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.