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 →90 patent families and 222 records cover surround view stitching algorithms; NVIDIA Corp leads with 11 families, far from any majority.
222 published records collapse into 90 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 145 of 222 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This set is built from a search for records whose title, abstract or claims mention surround view, a 360 degree camera or a bird's eye view system together with stitching or mosaic image processing. It returns 90 simple patent families across 222 published records, with no start or end date applied to the query, so the filing-trend chart's complete years are what should be read, not the full record count.
90 families is a small pool. The numbers here are a starting point for a search, not a map of a field: absence of a name or a classification branch in this set is as likely to reflect the search terms as it is to reflect what has actually been filed.
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 65 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 65 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.
Two views of the same 90-family dataset: records filed by year, and the IPC subclasses those families carry.
The trend counts published records, not de-duplicated inventions, so a single family filed in several offices adds several marks. 2017 is the peak year so far at 39 records; 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings publish, so those years understate eventual totals.
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 2009-2026 (221 records); the 222 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06T (image data processing & generation) appears on 60.0% of the 90 families, H04N (pictorial communication) on 46.7%, and B60R (vehicles, parts & accessories) on 27.8%. Families can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 90 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about surround view camera image stitching algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes a vehicular vision system with a camera capturing frames of image data exterior and rearward of the vehicle as it moves. An image processor uses vehicle motion information and software-based algorithms to generate, for each captured frame, left side, right side and rear bird's eye view image portions, which the control then combines.US10744941B2, Magna Electronics Inc, filed with a 2020-08-18 publication date. This is the first record the database returns under its default order, not the most cited or broadest claim in the set.

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.
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 →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 →Three figures worth sitting with before reading further into the dataset.
Of the 65 listed filers returned by this search, 60 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. NVIDIA Corp holds the most at 11 of 90 families (12.2%). Filer rows are not de-duplicated by corporate group and one family can name more than one filer, so these counts cannot be added across rows into a combined share.
G06T (image data processing & generation) is carried by 54 of the 90 families (60.0%), H04N (pictorial communication) by 42 (46.7%), and B60R (vehicles, parts & accessories) by 25 (27.8%). Families can carry more than one subclass, so these three shares add to more than 100% between them.
At the 2026-10-15 retrieval date, 145 of the 222 published records (65%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records are not broken out further in this dataset, so the split between pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed status cannot be stated here.
Among the 16 receiving offices this search returned, the United States carries the most records at 107, ahead of Europe (EPO) at 30 and WIPO (PCT) filings at 22. These counts are per office a record was filed in, so they sum to more than the 90-family total, not to the 222-record total either.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to surround view camera image stitching algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports counts and classifications. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision needs the underlying claim sets.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Before concluding anything about what a specific record covers, read its granted claims and prosecution history directly.
Open Patsnap EurekaThe 65 listed filers here are ordered by family volume only, with individuals removed from the list but still inside the totals. A deeper filer-by-filer read needs the full record set, not just the top rows shown on this page.
Explore filer records in Patsnap EurekaThis search returns 90 simple patent families, consolidated across 222 published records, with no date limit applied to the query. A family counts one invention regardless of how many countries it was filed in, while the record count counts each publication separately, so the two numbers measure different things and are not interchangeable. Because the underlying search string targets a fairly specific combination of terms, this figure reflects what matched those terms, not necessarily every patent filed on the topic.
NVIDIA Corp is named on 11 of the 90 simple patent families in this dataset (12.2%), the largest single row among the 65 listed filers. Sixty of those 65 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is a wide spread rather than a concentration at one name. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and individuals are excluded from the list but remain inside the totals, so this figure describes one row, not a combined group share.
The abstract for US10744941B2 (Magna Electronics Inc) describes a vehicular vision system that captures frames from a camera exterior and rearward of the vehicle and uses an image processor and vehicle motion information to generate left, right and rear bird's eye view image portions for combination. That description tells you what the abstract says the invention does, not what its granted claims legally require. Determining whether any specific design falls inside or outside this patent's protection requires reading the granted claim set and prosecution history directly; an abstract and a family count cannot answer that question.
This page does not show a growth rate for this dataset, because the filing-trend window is too thin to support one reliably. The peak year so far in the record count is 2017 at 39 published records, but records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, which is a normal publication lag rather than a drop in filing activity. With only 90 families in total underlying this trend, year-to-year moves should be read as a count of documents, not as a signal of acceleration or slowdown in the underlying technology.
Counted in published records, the United States receiving office carries 107 records, ahead of Europe (EPO) at 30, WIPO (PCT) filings at 22, India at 14, China at 12 and Germany at 10, among 16 receiving offices this search returned in total. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based or incorporated; this dataset provides no nationality information about any filer. The six figures above also do not add up to the full 222-record total, since only the largest offices are listed here.
Among the 90 simple patent families in this dataset, G06T (image data processing & generation) is carried by 54 families (60.0%), H04N (pictorial communication) by 42 (46.7%), and B60R (vehicles, parts & accessories) by 25 (27.8%). A family can carry more than one of these subclasses at once, which is why the shares add to more than 100% when considered together. There are 35 subclasses in all attached to this dataset; only the largest few are discussed here because the smaller ones carry too few families to characterise reliably.
Go past this page: query the whole surround view camera image stitching algorithm patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("surround view" OR "360 degree camera" OR "bird's eye view") AND (stitching OR mosaic) AND image*)
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 (G06T) carries 60.0% 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 222 records and 90 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 65 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 65 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 2026-10-15.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (145 of 222). 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.
This page