https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/storage-array-sequential-read-cache-prefetching-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · High-Performance & Advanced Computing

Storage Array Sequential Read Cache Prefetching Patents

A 17-family dataset on sequential-read cache prefetching in storage arrays, where two filers tie for the most filings and no single owner leads.

27
Published Records
17
Simple Patent Families
56%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

27 published records collapse into 17 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 15 of 27 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 17 simple patent families and 27 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search.
  • Two filers share the top count Avago Technologies International Sales Pte Ltd and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Dev LP are each named on 3 of the 17 families.
  • G06F covers the vast majority 88.2% of the 17 families carry a G06F (electric digital data processing) classification.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This page is built from a search for records that combine a storage array or storage controller with sequential read or read-ahead behaviour, and with prefetching or caching. The search string carries no date restriction, so the 17 simple patent families and 27 published records returned are whatever currently matches those terms, not a bounded time window. A record can be filed in more than one office and can carry more than one IPC subclass, so the counts on this page do not split into neat, non-overlapping slices.

17 families is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the field: absence of a term or a filer here is far more likely to reflect the search string than an absence of filing activity.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE LTD3
  2. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEV LP3
  3. DELL PROD LP2
  4. EMC IP HLDG CO LLC1
  5. ADAPTEC INC1
  6. Nanjing Qipaoxian Wearable Electronics Technology Co., Ltd.1
  7. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION1
  8. HITACHI LTD1
  9. MAXTOR CORP1
  10. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD1

Counted over all 27 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 19 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; 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 12 of the 12 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 12 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 Storage Array Sequential Read Cache Prefetching Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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 activity and classification mix

Published-record counts by filing year and IPC subclass shares, both drawn from the same 17-family and 27-record scope described above.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (19 of 27 published records)

Records run from 2007 (2 records) to a peak of 4 in 2014, counted by earliest filing year. Years from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart because publication lag means they are still filling in; this is a record count, not a family count, so one invention filed in several offices adds more than one mark to the line.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (19 of 27 published records)0123422007200920112013420152017201920212023202502022 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 (19 records); the 27 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition

G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 15 of the 17 families in scope, 88.2%. Shares are computed against the 17-family total and can sum to more than 100% because a single family can carry more than one IPC subclass.

IPC subclass compositionG06F · Electric digital data processi…1588.2%H04L · Digital information transmissi…211.8%G11C · Static & digital memories15.9%

Shares are the percentage of the 17 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 Storage Array Sequential Read Cache Prefetching Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Storage Array Sequential Read Cache Prefetching Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about storage array sequential read cache prefetching algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

One record from the result set

As returned by the search, default order
US20220261349A12022-08-18

Storage controller having data prefetching control function, operating method of storage controller, and operating method of storage device

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

The abstract describes a storage controller with a prefetch buffer that holds data prefetched from non-volatile memory, a determiner circuit that selects between prefetched data and normal data as the read output, and a prefetch control circuit that enables prefetching during sequential read operation, disables it at a later point, and then enables or keeps it disabled in a following suspend period depending on how the read data performs.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, grant status or any other measure.

US20220261349A1, patent drawing 1US20220261349A1, patent drawing 2
View this record in Eureka

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 Storage Array Sequential Read Cache Prefetching Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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 →
Insights

Reading the filer and classification data

Three figures from the dataset, reported on their own terms.

Filer concentration
3 families
top family count, tied

Two filers tied at 3 families each

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte Ltd and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Dev LP are each named on 3 of the 17 simple patent families (17.6% each). No single filer in the listed set holds more than that count.

Counted in simple patent families.
Long tail
10 of 12
filers at 2 families or fewer

Most listed filers hold 2 families or fewer

Of the 12 listed filers, 10 are named on 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The list covers organisations only; filings held by named individuals are excluded from it but remain inside the 17-family total.

Listed filers, organisations only.
Classification mix
88.2%
families carrying G06F

G06F appears on 15 of 17 families

G06F (electric digital data processing) is the subclass most frequently carried in this dataset, appearing on 15 of the 17 simple patent families. Because a family can carry more than one subclass, this share is not exclusive of any other classification.

Share computed against the 17-family total.
Legal status
15 of 27
records granted and in force

15 of 27 records were in force at retrieval

At the 2026-10-21 retrieval date, 15 of the 27 published records were granted and still in force. The remaining records fall into other statuses that are not broken out individually here, so no pending or lapsed count can be stated.

Legal status at retrieval, counted in published records.
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 storage array sequential read cache prefetching 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 Storage Array Sequential Read Cache Prefetching Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next

Taking this further

This page is a fixed snapshot built from one search string. A working session in Eureka lets you adjust the scope and pull the records that matter to your question.

Re-run the search with your own terms

The 17 families here came from one string. Widening or narrowing the keyword combination, or adding classification filters, can surface filers and records this exact phrasing did not catch.

Open Eureka →

Pull granted claims before drawing FTO conclusions

Family counts and abstracts cannot establish claim scope. Reading the granted claim set of any specific record is the only way to know what it actually requires.

Explore records 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 Storage Array Sequential Read Cache Prefetching Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Storage Array Sequential Read Cache Prefetching Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Storage Array Sequential Read Cache Prefetching Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole storage array sequential read cache prefetching 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:(("storage array" OR "storage controller") AND ("sequential read" OR "read-ahead") AND (prefetch* OR caching))

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 88.2% 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 27 records and 17 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. 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 12 of the 12 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 12 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 2026-10-21.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (15 of 27). 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.

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.