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/state-machine-based-sequential-function-chart-control-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Industrial Automation & ControlState Machine Based Sequential Function Chart Control Patents
Small set of 8 patent families and 10 records on state-machine sequential function chart control, with no single filer ahead of the rest.
10
Published Records
8
Simple Patent Families
20%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction
10 published records collapse into 8 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 2 of 10 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 8 filers share the top count of 1 simple patent family each so no single organisation is named on more families than another in this set of 8 total families.
- China received the most filings by receiving office 5 of 10 published records were filed there, against 2 in the United States and 1 each in Austria, Europe (EPO) and under WIPO (PCT).
- G06F and G05B cover most of the families in scope G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 75.0% of the 8 families and G05B (control & regulating systems) on 62.5%.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page reports every record returned by a search for state machine and state transition concepts combined with sequential function chart or sequence control terms, limited to records also referencing industrial, automation or PLC context. The search carries no date limit, so the records span whatever filing years the matching documents happen to fall in; the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window of that span, not the full set.
Only 8 simple patent families and 10 published records match this search string. That is a small pool: the figures below describe what those few documents contain, not a map of a wider field, and the page is best read as a starting point for a deeper search rather than a conclusion about the technology.
Records and families in scope
Counted over all 10 published records, including filings from before 2016; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 6 records from 2016 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 (1 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 8 of the 8 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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 State Machine Based Sequential Function Chart Control 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
Data
Filing trend and classification mix
Two views of the same 8 families and 10 records: how the records are spread by earliest filing year, and how the families split across the two IPC subclasses that each cover more than half of them.
Filing trend (published records) (6 of 10 published records)
Records filed from 2016 through 2026, counted by earliest filing year. The series runs from 2 records in 2016 to 2 in 2026, with 2 the highest count reached in any shown year, reached in both 2016 and 2026, and earlier filings sit outside this window. Four records filed before 2016 sit outside this window, so 2016 is the first year shown, not a the highest year shown point. 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings publish, so the right-hand end of the line understates the eventual count.
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 2016-2026 (6 records); the 10 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2016 is the highest year shown, but it is also the first year in the window: earlier filings sit outside this chart, so this is not necessarily the historical peak.
IPC subclass composition
Counted against the 8 simple patent families in scope, G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 6 families (75.0%) and G05B (control & regulating systems) on 5 families (62.5%). Because a family can carry both classes, these two shares add to more than 100%; the chart includes further subclasses below this pair that are not broken out in the text.
Shares are the percentage of the 8 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 State Machine Based Sequential Function Chart Control 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 State Machine Based Sequential Function Chart Control Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about state machine based sequential function chart control patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing
A record from the result set
First record returned
Computer-implemented method, apparatus, system and computer program product for creation of a sequence-based sequence control of an industrial process
SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
The invention relates to a computer-implemented method, apparatus, system and computer program product for creation of a sequence-based sequential control of an industrial process. It covers provision of a textual description of the process, determination of an optimized sequence based on that textual description, and provision of the sequence-based sequential control derived from the determined sequence, at least partly through use of a compiler.Shown as the first record the database returns for this search, not as the most cited or most representative filing. Its number, assignee and filing date are rendered separately above.
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 State Machine Based Sequential Function Chart Control 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 →Figures
What the numbers show
Three figures drawn directly from the search result, each counted in the unit stated.
Filer concentration
1 family each
joint top filer count
8 filers tied at 1 family
The listed filers include LUCENT TECH INC, SUPCON TECH CO LTD, FABRICOM, WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC, HITACHI LTD and three more, each named on 1 of the 8 simple patent families in scope (12.5% for any single one of them). No row in this list is named on more families than another, and the rows are not added together here because one family can name more than one filer.
8 filers listed, each on 1 family
Legal status
2 of 10
records in force
20% of records were granted and in force at retrieval
At the 2026-10-27 retrieval date, 2 of the 10 published records were granted and still in force. The remaining 8 records are not broken down further in this dataset, pending, withdrawn, refused and lapsed records are not separated out, so no single status beyond "in force" can be quoted for them.
Status recorded at retrieval; it changes continuously
Filing offices
5 offices
receiving offices
China received the most of the 10 published records
Across the 5 receiving offices returned by this search, China accounts for 5 of the 10 published records, the United States for 2, and Austria, the EPO and WIPO (PCT) for 1 each. These counts are by office where a record was filed, not by any filer's country, which this dataset does not provide.
Counted in published records, which sum to 10
Classification overlap
75.0% / 62.5%
share of 8 families
G06F and G05B both cover more than half the families
G06F (electric digital data processing) is recorded on 6 of the 8 families (75.0%) and G05B (control & regulating systems) on 5 of the 8 (62.5%). These two shares add to more than 100% because a family can carry both classes at once.
Denominator: 8 simple patent families
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 state machine based sequential function chart control 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 State Machine Based Sequential Function Chart Control 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
Where to take this next
The figures here come from one search string run against one database snapshot. Use them as a starting point rather than a finished read.
Pull the granted claims directly
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. For any record that matters to a decision, read the claim set itself rather than relying on the summary here.
Open the record in Eureka →Widen or vary the search string
With only 8 families in scope, changing the keyword combinations or adding synonyms is likely to surface records this search string did not catch, especially in adjacent IPC subclasses not broken out above.
Rerun the search in Eureka →Track status changes over time
Legal status at retrieval is a snapshot, not a stable figure. Revisit the in-force count periodically if a filing decision depends on it.
Set up monitoring in 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 State Machine Based Sequential Function Chart Control 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 practitioners ask
This search returns 8 simple patent families and 10 published records, retrieved on 2026-10-27. The search string combines state machine, state transition and sequential function chart terms with sequence control or sequential control language, restricted to records also referencing industrial, automation or PLC context. It carries no date limit, so the set reflects whatever filing years happen to match rather than a defined historical window; a different phrasing of the same concepts could return a different count.
The search returns 8 listed organisational filers, each named on 1 of the 8 simple patent families in scope (12.5% for any one row). Names include LUCENT TECH INC, SUPCON TECH CO LTD, FABRICOM, WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC, HITACHI LTD and three others. No single filer here is named on more families than another, and because one family can name several filers, these rows cannot be summed into a combined share.
Of the 8 families in scope, G06F (electric digital data processing) is recorded on 6 of them, 75.0%, and G05B (control & regulating systems) on 5, 62.5%. These two shares add to more than 100% because a family can be classified under both subclasses at once. Other subclasses appear in the dataset at lower shares but are not broken out in detail here.
The search returns 5 receiving offices across the 10 published records: China with 5, the United States with 2, and Austria, the EPO and WIPO (PCT) with 1 each. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, since the dataset does not include filer nationality or location. A record can also appear at more than one office across its family.
At the retrieval date of 2026-10-27, 2 of the 10 published records were granted and in force, 20% of the set. The remaining 8 are not broken down by status in this dataset, they may be pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or simply not determinable from available data. Legal status changes continuously, so this figure is a snapshot rather than a fixed outcome.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for State Machine Based Sequential Function Chart Control 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 State Machine Based Sequential Function Chart Control Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole state machine based sequential function chart control 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:(("sequential function chart" OR "state machine" OR "state transition") AND ("sequence control" OR "sequential control") AND (industrial OR automation OR PLC))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 75.0% 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 10 records and 8 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 (1 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 8 of the 8 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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 (2 of 10). 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.