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 →A patent landscape review of SQL window function execution technology: filing trends since 2015, assignee concentration, IPC composition and where claim space remains open.
Filing growth = 2021 (3 records) → 2024 (1); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 24 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
This landscape tracks patent activity around SQL window function execution — the partition, frame and ranking logic behind analytic queries such as running totals, rank-over-partition and moving aggregates. The scope covers 24 published records filed between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off, drawn from filings that combine SQL or relational-database language with window/analytic-function and partition/frame/ranking terms, classified under G06F16. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent years in the trend understate real activity.
The picture that emerges is concentrated rather than diffuse: a single assignee holds more records than the rest of the ranked group combined, and receiving-office activity is dominated by the United States. Read alongside the IPC composition, the dataset suggests the core technical territory — how a database engine partitions rows and iterates analytic operators over them — is largely staked out by one filer, with commerce-oriented and AI-adjacent extensions still comparatively open.
Two views of the same 24 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which technical classes those filings sit in.
Filings opened at 1 record in 2015, climbed to a peak of 5 in 2019, and by the last complete year, 2024, had fallen to 1 — a 67% drop from the 2021 level of 3. The 2025-2026 figures are still incomplete due to publication lag and should not be read as a continued decline.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
All 24 records carry a G06F classification, the electric digital data processing class that anchors this search. Beyond that base, 25.0% of records also touch G06Q (business and commerce data processing), 12.5% touch G06N (AI-based computing) and another 12.5% touch H04L (digital information transmission) — the rest, including G06T, H04N, G07C and G16B, each account for one or two records. Because a single record can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to more than 100% of the 24 records.
Shares are the percentage of the 24 records in scope. A patent 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 sql window function execution patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaExecution plans generated for multiple analytic queries incorporate two new kinds of plan operators, a partition creator and partition iterator. The partition creator and partition iterator operate as a pair. A partition creator operator creates partitions of rows and a partitioning descriptor describing the partitions created. A partition iterator iterates through the partitions based on the partitioning descriptor. For each partition, multiple analytic operators are executed serially, one after the other, on the same rows in the partition, with partitioning based on a common grouping or subgrouping of the multiple aggregate functions or operators.Filed by Oracle International Corporation, published 2021-03-18 as US20210081419A1.


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 →Four read-outs from the dataset that matter more than the raw counts.
The leading assignee alone accounts for 9 of the 24 records in scope, and the top five together cover 79.2% of all filings. That is a narrow base: new entrants working on partition-creation or iterator mechanics should expect to design around a small number of holders rather than navigate a crowded field.
Filings peaked at 5 in 2019 and fell to 1 by 2024, a 67% drop from the 2021 level of 3 records. Because publication lags filing by about 18 months, 2025-2026 figures are still filling in and should not be read as confirming further decline.
A quarter of the 24 records carry a G06Q business-data-processing classification alongside the core G06F class, suggesting window-function claims are increasingly framed around business analytics use cases rather than generic database engines.
Of the receiving offices recorded, the United States accounts for the largest share, with India, Singapore, Austria, Germany and the EPO each contributing a small number of filings. Strategies built around US prosecution will encounter most of the existing art; other jurisdictions remain comparatively thin.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to sql window function execution patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The counts and rankings here are a starting point. Turning them into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means drilling into specific claims and specific holders.
Compare a proposed partition-and-iterate mechanism directly against the claim language of the leading assignee's filings to see exactly where overlap begins.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaG06Q-classed filings are a growing minority inside this dataset; track new entrants there before the branch consolidates the way the core class has.
Set up monitoring in Patsnap EurekaRun a claim-scope check against under-claimed branches such as bioinformatics or video-pictorial applications of window functions before committing drafting resources.
Check white space in Patsnap EurekaThe ranked dataset of 10 companies shows one assignee well ahead of the rest, holding 9 of the 24 records in scope. The top five assignees combined account for 79.2% of all 24 records, which means the field is concentrated rather than fragmented across many small filers. Anyone entering this space should study that leading filer's claim scope closely before drafting, since it is the most likely source of blocking prior art. The remaining five ranked companies, plus a long tail of single-filing entrants, hold the balance.
Filing activity peaked in 2019 at 5 records and has declined since; from 2021 (3 records) to 2024 (1 record), the last year with reasonably complete data, filings fell by 67%. Because patent publication typically lags the actual filing date by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend chart are still incomplete and should not be read as evidence of a continuing drop. Overall the pattern looks like an early period of core-mechanism claiming that has since slowed, rather than a field still in an active land grab.
Every one of the 24 records in scope carries a G06F classification, the electric digital data processing class that anchors database-engine claims. Beyond that base, 25.0% of records also touch G06Q, the business and commerce data-processing class, and 12.5% each touch G06N (AI-based computing) and H04L (digital information transmission). Smaller overlaps appear with image processing, video communication, time/attendance systems and bioinformatics, each accounting for one or two records — these smaller branches are worth watching as potential white space rather than treating them as settled territory.
The core partition-creator and partition-iterator mechanics, exemplified by filings like US20210081419A1, are the most heavily claimed territory and sit with the leading assignee. The classes with only one or two records each — bioinformatics (G16B), time/attendance devices (G07C), and image or video-pictorial processing (G06T, H04N) — show comparatively little claiming activity relative to the core G06F/G06Q overlap. A first claim framed around applying window-function execution techniques to one of those under-represented domains, rather than re-claiming the general partition-and-iterate mechanism, is more likely to clear existing art.
Among the receiving offices recorded, the United States accounts for the largest share of filings, with India and Singapore each contributing a smaller number, and Austria, Germany and the European Patent Office each recording a single filing. This means most of the substantive prior art and prosecution history sits in the US patent system, so a freedom-to-operate review focused there will catch the bulk of relevant claims. Filers looking at Europe or Asia-Pacific markets should note the comparatively thin filing history there, which may reflect either less activity or an opportunity not yet claimed regionally.
Go past this page: query the whole sql window function execution patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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 inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. 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, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently 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.
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