https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/support-vector-machine-kernel-function-optimization-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · AI & Machine Learning

Support Vector Machine Kernel Function Patents

4,675 families and 10,625 records on SVM kernel optimization, with filing trends, filer concentration and IPC splits.

10.6K
Published Records
4,675
Simple Patent Families
1%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
37%
In Force at Cut-off

10,625 published records collapse into 4,675 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION is named on 62 of the 4,675 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 In force = 3,978 of 10,625 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 4,675 simple patent families and 10,625 published records sit in scope for this search. Across kernel selection and kernel function terms tied to support vector machines.
  • International Business Machine Corporation holds the largest single filer row. Named on 62 of the 4,675 families, 1.3% of the total, ahead of the fifth-place filer's 31 and the tenth-place filer's 22.
  • Published records filed from 2018 to 2021 rose 14%. From 701 in 2018 to 799 in 2021, the most recent span that can be read as complete before publication lag sets in.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This landscape reports every record matched by TAC:("support vector machine") AND (kernel OR "kernel function" OR "kernel selection"), with no date limit applied in the search string itself. That returns 10,625 published records, which de-duplicate to 4,675 simple patent families once filings for the same invention across different countries are collapsed. The filing-trend chart on this page shows a recent window only and should not be read as the full span of the dataset.

Of the 10,625 records, 3,978 (37%) were granted and still in force at retrieval; the remainder covers everything else a record can be, pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or simply not determinable from the data available, and that breakdown is not split out further here.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION62
  2. STATE GRID CORPORATION OF CHINA57
  3. MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC43
  4. VELLORE INSITUTE OF TECH32
  5. RGT UNIV OF CALIFORNIA31
  6. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD29
  7. ORACLE INT CORP25
  8. TIANJIN UNIV24
  9. SYMBIOSIS INT DEEMED UNIV23
  10. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD22

Counted over all 10,625 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 9,722 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 (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 30 of the 99 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 99 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 Support Vector Machine Kernel Function Optimization 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 technology composition

The two views below use different units, published records by earliest filing year for the trend, and simple patent families for the technology split, so read each figure against the unit named with it.

Filing trend, published records by earliest filing year (9,722 of 10,625 published records)

Records filed from 2007 (210) run through 2026 (221), with a peak so far of 829 in 2019. Records filed from 2018 to 2021 rose from 701 to 799, a 14% increase; years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications continue to publish, so no decline should be read into that final stretch.

Filing trend, published records by earliest filing year (9,722 of 10,625 published records)02505007501,00021020072009201120132015201782920192021202320252212022 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 (9,722 records); the 10,625 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

Technology composition, IPC subclass share of families

G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 35.8% of the 4,675 families, G06F (electric digital data processing) on 33.9%, and G06K (data recognition & presentation) on 26.9%. A family can carry more than one of these classes, so the three shares add up to more than 100%.

Technology composition, IPC subclass share of familiesG06N · Computing based on AI models1,67435.8%G06F · Electric digital data processi…1,58433.9%G06K · Data recognition & presentation1,25826.9%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…51110.9%A61B · Diagnosis & surgery50910.9%G06V · Image/video recognition47710.2%G06T · Image data processing & genera…4519.6%G01N · Material analysis & testing4188.9%Other2,83660.7%

Shares are the percentage of the 4,675 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 Support Vector Machine Kernel Function Optimization 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 Support Vector Machine Kernel Function Optimization Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about support vector machine kernel function optimization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

A record from the result set

First record returned under default database order
US7421417B22008-09-02

Input feature and kernel selection for support vector machine classification

WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION

A feature selection technique for support vector machine (SVM) classification makes use of a fast Newton method that suppresses input space features for a linear programming formulation of a linear SVM classifier, or suppresses kernel functions for a linear programming formulation of a nonlinear SVM classifier. The technique may be implemented with a linear equation solver, without the need for specialized linear programming packages, and is described as applicable to linear or nonlinear SVM classifiers.Shown because it is the first record returned under the database's default ordering for this search, not because it is the most cited or most recent filing in scope.

US7421417B2, patent drawing 1US7421417B2, patent drawing 2
View record US7421417B2

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 Support Vector Machine Kernel Function Optimization 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
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 →
Patterns in the data

What the figures show

Three figures from this dataset are worth holding in mind before drilling into the full tables.

Filer concentration
1.3%
largest single filer's share of 4,675 families

Top row holds 62 of 4,675 families

International Business Machine Corporation is named on 62 of the 4,675 simple patent families in scope (1.3%), the largest single row in a list of 100 listed filers. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and one family can name several filers, so rows cannot be added together to produce a combined share.

Based on the filer ranking, simple patent families
Spread of filing
0 of 99
listed filers holding 2 or fewer families

No listed filer sits at the bottom of the range

Among the 99 listed filers (organisations; individual-named filings are excluded from this list where they can be identified but remain in the totals), none holds 2 or fewer families. The listed rows together sum to 30% of the 4,675 families, which reflects overlap between rows rather than a coverage figure.

Based on the filer ranking, simple patent families
Technology split
35.8%
families carrying IPC subclass G06N

G06N carries the largest IPC share in scope

G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 1,674 of 4,675 families (35.8%), ahead of G06F at 33.9% and G06K at 26.9%. Because families can carry multiple IPC subclasses, these shares are not mutually exclusive and do not sum to 100%.

Based on IPC subclass tagging, simple patent families
Legal status
37%
of 10,625 records granted and in force at retrieval

3,978 of 10,625 records were in force at retrieval

At the 2026-10-27 retrieval date, 3,978 of the 10,625 published records (37%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records cover every other status a record can carry, which is not broken out further in this dataset.

Based on legal status at retrieval, 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 support vector machine kernel function optimization 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 Support Vector Machine Kernel Function Optimization 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

Where to take this next

The figures on this page describe what this search returned; they do not establish claim scope, strategy or priority for any single filer or record.

Read claims directly before acting

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim requires. Anyone evaluating a specific design or route against this space needs to pull the granted claim set for the records that matter to them.

Explore records in Patsnap Eureka

Track the filers that recur

The filer ranking shows which organisations recur across this search, without summing related names or inferring strategy from volume. Use it as a starting list for deeper per-filer review.

Build a filer watchlist in Patsnap 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 Support Vector Machine Kernel Function Optimization 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 landscape

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Support Vector Machine Kernel Function Optimization 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 Support Vector Machine Kernel Function Optimization Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole support vector machine kernel function optimization 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:("support vector machine") AND (kernel OR "kernel function" OR "kernel selection")

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. No subclass carries much of this set: the most common one is on 35.8% of the patent families and the set spans 100 subclasses in all. That can mean the technology genuinely sits across several areas, or that the search string is also matching adjacent work that happens to use the same words. This page cannot separate the two, and the result set is not screened by hand.

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 10,625 records and 4,675 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 30 of the 99 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 99 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, and the growth figure stops at 2021. 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 (3,978 of 10,625). 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.

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.