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/stream-processing-architecture-with-fifo-queue-buffering-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · High-Performance & Advanced ComputingStream Processing Architecture with FIFO Queue Buffering Patents
29 patent families and 85 published records cover FIFO-buffered stream processing architectures, with filings concentrated in digital data processing.
85
Published Records
29
Simple Patent Families
21%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
85 published records collapse into 29 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 18 of 85 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 29 simple patent families and 85 published records make up this dataset, with no single filer holding more than 2 families.
- Three filers share the top count ARM LTD, MEDTRONIC INC and KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV are each named on 2 of the 29 families.
- G06F covers 65.5% of families the highest share of any IPC subclass among the 29 families in scope, ahead of H04L and H04N at 20.7% each.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This landscape is built from the search string TAC:("stream processing" OR "streaming architecture") AND FIFO AND (buffer* OR queue*), which pulls records whose title, abstract or claims mention stream processing or streaming architecture together with a FIFO structure and a buffer or queue. It returns 85 published records, de-duplicated into 29 simple patent families. The search sets no date limit, so the records span whatever years the underlying filings happen to cover; the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window of that span.
This is a small pool: 29 families is not enough to support claims about market concentration, technology maturity or white space. Treat this page as a starting point for a more targeted search in Patsnap Eureka, not as a map of the field.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 85 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 37 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 TECH (SHANGHAI TECH UNIV, ECHOSTAR TECH LLC). 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 (5 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 27 of the 27 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 27 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 Stream Processing Architecture with FIFO Queue Buffering 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
Data
Filing activity and technology mix
The figures below are drawn directly from the search result set: a filing trend by earliest filing year, and an IPC breakdown across the 29 families in scope.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (37 of 85 published records)
Published records run from 2007 through a peak of 7 records in 2014. Years from 2022 onward are shaded as still filling in: publication lag of 18-30 months means recent filings are undercounted, and this series counts published records, not de-duplicated inventions, so a rising or falling line cannot be read as more or less invention activity.
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 (37 records); the 85 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass composition
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 65.5% of the 29 families, the highest share in the set. H04L (digital information transmission) and H04N (pictorial communication) each appear on 20.7%. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 29 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 Stream Processing Architecture with FIFO Queue Buffering 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 Stream Processing Architecture with FIFO Queue Buffering Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about stream processing architecture with fifo queue buffering patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaSample Record
A record from the result set
From the search results
EP1618466A2, Concurrent processes communicating through a FIFO buffer
TRIDENT MICROSYSTEMS (FAR EAST) LTD.
The abstract describes a processing circuit running a data-producing process and a data-consuming process concurrently. A first-in first-out buffer, backed by buffer memory written in circular fashion, passes the data stream between the two processes. A consuming process interface responds to a command for making a data grain available by testing addresses within the buffer.This is simply the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. Nothing about its position in the result list implies it is representative of the other 28 families.
View full recordSelected 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 Stream Processing Architecture with FIFO Queue Buffering 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
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 technology figures
Three figures from the dataset are worth isolating on their own terms: the joint top filer count, the spread across the rest of the list, and the technology concentration.
Filer concentration
2 of 29
families named on the largest single-row filer
No single filer tops the list
ARM LTD, MEDTRONIC INC and KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV are each named on 2 of the 29 simple patent families (ARM LTD's 2 families equal 6.9% of the total). Because one family can name more than one filer, these rows cannot be added together into a combined share.
Largest single-row count
Filer spread
27 of 27
listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each
All listed filers hold 2 families or fewer
Every one of the 27 listed filers holds 2 or fewer of the 29 simple patent families. This count describes how thinly the listed entities are spread; it does not establish who else may be filing, since filings held by named individuals are excluded from this list but remain in the totals.
Count of listed filer rows
Legal status
18 of 85
records granted and in force at retrieval
21% of records are in force
18 of the 85 published records (21%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-21 retrieval date. The remainder cover pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable statuses in unspecified proportions, and legal status changes continuously after retrieval.
At retrieval date, 2026-10-21
Technology mix
65.5%
of families carry a G06F classification
G06F covers the largest share of families
19 of the 29 families (65.5%) carry a G06F (electric digital data processing) classification, the highest share of any IPC subclass in this set. H04L and H04N each appear on 20.7% of families; since a family can carry multiple classes, these shares overlap and sum to more than 100%.
Share of 29 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 stream processing architecture with fifo queue buffering 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 Stream Processing Architecture with FIFO Queue Buffering 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
Go deeper in Patsnap Eureka
This page reports counts from one search string. A narrower or broader query, or a claim-level read of specific families, needs a dedicated workspace.
Pull the granted claims
Family and IPC counts cannot tell you what any single patent covers. Read the granted claim set of any record that matters to your work before drawing conclusions about scope.
Open in Patsnap Eureka →Re-run with adjacent terms
A different combination of keywords or classification codes may surface filers and families this search string did not catch, especially where FIFO or buffering terminology varies.
Build a new search →Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Stream Processing Architecture with FIFO Queue Buffering 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
Common questions about this dataset
This search returns 85 published records, which de-duplicate into 29 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. There is no date limit on the search, so this covers whatever years the matching filings span, not a fixed recent window. The 29-family figure is the one to use when comparing filer or technology shares, since those are both counted in families.
Three filers share the top count: ARM LTD, MEDTRONIC INC and KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV are each named on 2 of the 29 simple patent families. Every one of the 27 listed filers holds 2 or fewer families, so there is a long tail rather than a single filer standing well above the rest. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer, and the list excludes filings held by named individuals even though those remain in the overall totals.
Its abstract describes a processing circuit running a data-producing process and a data-consuming process concurrently, with a first-in first-out buffer passing a data stream between them using circular writes into buffer memory. A consuming process interface responds to commands for making a data grain available by testing buffer addresses. This is simply the first record returned by the database's default ordering, not the most cited or broadest filing in the set, and its abstract cannot establish what its granted claims actually require; that needs a direct read of the claim set.
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 19 of the 29 families, 65.5%, the highest share in this set. H04L (digital information transmission) and H04N (pictorial communication) each appear on 6 families, 20.7%. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these percentages add up to more than 100%, and the dataset lists 9 subclasses in all, though only the largest carry enough share to characterise here.
This page does not show a growth rate for this topic: the dataset is too thin and the recent years too incomplete for a percentage to mean anything reliable. The filing trend chart shows published records by earliest filing year with a peak of 7 records in 2014, but years from 2022 onward are still filling in due to publication lag of 18 to 30 months. Because the chart counts published records rather than de-duplicated inventions, a rising or falling line cannot be read as more or less underlying invention activity.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Stream Processing Architecture with FIFO Queue Buffering 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 Stream Processing Architecture with FIFO Queue Buffering Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole stream processing architecture with fifo queue buffering 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:(("stream processing" OR "streaming architecture") AND FIFO AND (buffer* OR queue*))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 65.5% 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 85 records and 29 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 (5 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 27 of the 27 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 27 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 (18 of 85). 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.