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/static-random-access-memory-column-decoder-multiplexing-architecture-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Semiconductors & MicroelectronicsSRAM Column Decoder and Multiplexer Architecture Patents
244 simple patent families and 536 records cover SRAM column decoder and multiplexer designs, led by Samsung at 9.0% of families.
536
Published Records
244
Simple Patent Families
9%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
28%
In Force at Cut-off
536 published records collapse into 244 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD is named on 22 of the 244 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 In force = 149 of 536 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 244 simple patent families and 536 published records match this search string across SRAM column decoder and column multiplexer array designs, with no date limit applied.
- Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 22 of the 244 families the highest share among the listed filers, at 9.0%.
- 59 of the 84 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each showing a long tail behind the small number of filers with larger counts.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This search pulls records matching SRAM or static random access memory together with column decoder or column multiplexer and array in the title, abstract or claims. It returns 536 published records, which de-duplicate down to 244 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is collapsed to a single family. No date range was applied, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to carry.
Of the 536 records, 149 (28%) were granted and still in force at the point of retrieval. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable from the available data, and that breakdown is not separated out further here.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 536 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 246 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 (16 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 84 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 84 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 Static Random Access Memory Column Decoder Multiplexing Architecture 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 activity and technology split
The figures below are drawn directly from the search result set: a filing-trend series counted in published records, and an IPC subclass breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (246 of 536 published records)
Published records counted by earliest filing year ranged from 15 in 2007 to 2 in 2026, with a peak of 24 reached in both 2008 and 2016. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications continue to publish, so that stretch of the chart understates its eventual count 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 (246 records); the 536 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass composition
G11C (static and digital memories) appears on 224 of the 244 families in scope, 91.8%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 48 families, 19.7%. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to more than 100%, and the chart covers 28 subclasses in all with only the largest few shown here.
Shares are the percentage of the 244 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 Static Random Access Memory Column Decoder Multiplexing Architecture 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 Static Random Access Memory Column Decoder Multiplexing Architecture Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about static random access memory column decoder multiplexing architecture patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRecord in focus
A record from the result set
As returned by the search
Nonvolatile SRAM (NVSRAM) combining an SRAM array with a resistive memory array
NXP USA, INC.
US9640256B1 describes an integrated circuit with a static random access memory (SRAM) array and a resistive memory array, where programmable resistive elements store data from the SRAM memory cells. Sense amplifier circuitry can be coupled to either array, and an arbiter asserts a resistive-memory enable signal to switch the sense amplifiers between the SRAM array and the resistive memory array depending on whether a resistive-memory read operation is underway.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, grant date or relevance. It is shown to illustrate what one matching record actually claims, 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 Static Random Access Memory Column Decoder Multiplexing Architecture 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 →Patterns in the data
What the filer and classification counts show
These cards report figures directly from the search result set. They describe counts, not claim scope, strategy or technology quality.
Largest single filer
22 of 244
families named
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd holds the highest single-row share
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 22 of the 244 simple patent families in scope, 9.0%. This is the largest count among the listed filers; it is a count of named families, not a measure of claim breadth or enforceability.
Based on 244 simple patent families
Filer spread
59 of 84
filers at 2 or fewer families
Most listed filers hold very few families each
59 of the 84 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The remaining 25 listed filers account for higher counts, down to 9 families at fifth place and 5 at tenth place. Filer rows are not mutually exclusive, so these counts cannot be added together into a combined share.
Based on 84 listed filers, organisations
Technology concentration
91.8%
families tagged G11C
G11C covers most of the families in scope
G11C (static and digital memories) is tagged on 224 of the 244 families, 91.8%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 48 families, 19.7%. Because one family can carry several IPC classes, these two shares overlap to an unknown degree and add up to more than 100% together.
Based on 244 simple patent families, IPC subclass tags
Legal status
28%
in force at retrieval
149 of 536 records were in force at retrieval
149 of the 536 published records, 28%, were granted and still in force at the point of retrieval. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated further in this dataset.
Based on 536 published records, legal 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 static random access memory column decoder multiplexing architecture 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 Static Random Access Memory Column Decoder Multiplexing Architecture 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
Working with this dataset further
The figures here come from one search string against one database snapshot. Reading claim scope, freedom-to-operate or a filer's broader portfolio requires going past the counts on this page.
Pull the granted claims directly
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim requires. Checking a specific design against a specific record means reading that record's claim set in Patsnap Eureka.
Open this search in EurekaTrack filers beyond the top rows
The listed filers here are the top 30 of 84 returned by the search, and the full list does not include individual-named filings. Eureka can expand filer coverage and refresh counts as new records publish.
Explore filers 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 Static Random Access Memory Column Decoder Multiplexing Architecture 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 about this dataset
This search returns 536 published records, which collapse to 244 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. No date limit was applied to the search, so the figure reflects every matching record regardless of filing year. The two numbers measure different things: records count every publication, while families count each invention once no matter how many countries it was filed in.
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 22 of the 244 simple patent families in scope, 9.0%, the highest single-row figure among the 84 listed filers. That figure describes how many families name that filer, not the breadth or strength of its claims. The filer list is ordered by volume alone and the rows are not mutually exclusive, so counts for different filers cannot be added together into a combined share.
59 of the 84 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each, which points to a long tail behind the filers with larger counts. The fifth-placed filer holds 9 families and the tenth-placed filer holds 5, so counts fall off quickly after the top few rows. Because one family can name more than one filer, these rows overlap and no combined percentage for any group of them can be stated from this data.
Published records by earliest filing year ranged from 15 in 2007 to 2 in 2026, with a peak of 24 reached in both 2008 and 2016. Records from 2022 onward are still publishing, since filings typically take 18 to 30 months to appear after filing, so that recent stretch understates its eventual total and should not be read as a drop in activity. The series counts published records, not inventions, so filing the same invention in more countries also raises the count without implying more underlying innovation.
US9640256B1, assigned to NXP USA, Inc. and published 2017-05-02, describes a nonvolatile SRAM (NVSRAM) integrated circuit combining an SRAM array with a resistive memory array, where an arbiter switches shared sense amplifier circuitry between the two arrays depending on whether a resistive-memory read is underway. It is simply the first record returned by this search under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations or relevance. Determining what its granted claims actually require, and whether any particular design falls inside them, requires reading the granted claim set directly rather than inferring it from the abstract or from family counts.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Static Random Access Memory Column Decoder Multiplexing Architecture 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 Static Random Access Memory Column Decoder Multiplexing Architecture Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole static random access memory column decoder multiplexing architecture 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:(("SRAM" OR "static random access memory") AND ("column decoder" OR "column multiplexer") AND array)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 (G11C) carries 91.8% 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 536 records and 244 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 (16 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 84 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 84 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 (149 of 536). 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.