https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/synchronization-supply-unit-reference-clock-source-selection-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Telecommunications & Next-Generation Networks

Synchronization Supply Unit Reference Clock Source Selection Patents

271 patent families and 619 records cover SSU reference clock source selection; Samsung leads a field with a long tail of 73 single-to-twin filers.

619
Published Records
271
Simple Patent Families
5%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
US
Leading Jurisdiction

619 published records collapse into 271 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD is named on 13 of the 271 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.

  • 271 simple patent families and 619 published records match this search string for synchronization supply unit, SSU or BITS reference clock source selection.
  • Samsung Electronics Co Ltd holds the largest single row named on 13 of the 271 families in scope (4.8%), ahead of a field where 73 of the 96 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • H04L digital information transmission carries the largest technology share at 29.5% of the 271 families, ahead of G06F electric digital data processing at 24.7% and H03L automatic frequency/phase control at 22.5%.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This landscape reports every record returned by a search string combining synchronization supply unit, SSU or BITS terms with reference clock or reference source language and the word selection, read against patent title, abstract and claims text. The result set runs to 619 published records, which de-duplicate down to 271 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is collapsed to one entry. No date limit was applied to the search, so the set spans whatever years the matching text happens to appear in the underlying corpus.

Because the search is text-driven rather than classification-driven, a share of the matches sit in adjacent circuitry and data-processing fields where the same phrasing appears for unrelated reasons. The technology composition below reflects that: four IPC subclasses carry a visible share of the 271 families, and the remainder of the 52 subclasses the search touches fall below a level worth discussing in prose.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD13
  2. SK HYNIX INC10
  3. NEC CORP10
  4. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION9
  5. ALTERA CORP8
  6. FUJITSU LTD7
  7. PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORP7
  8. HITACHI LTD7
  9. SOCIONEXT INC7
  10. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC5

Counted over all 619 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 203 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 (4 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 96 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 96 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 Synchronization Supply Unit Reference Clock Source Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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
The numbers

Filing trend and technology split

The two views below use different units, as noted on each: the filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, while the technology composition counts simple patent families against the 271 in scope.

Filing trend, 2007 to present (203 of 619 published records)

Published records by earliest filing year run from 33 in 2007 up to a peak of 36 in 2008, continuing through to 3 in 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so that stretch of the chart understates the eventual count and should not be read as a decline.

Filing trend, 2007 to present (203 of 619 published records)0102030403320073620092011201320152017201920212023202532022 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 (203 records); the 619 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

H04L (digital information transmission) carries the largest share at 29.5% of the 271 families, followed by G06F (electric digital data processing) at 24.7%, H03L (automatic frequency/phase control) at 22.5%, and H03K (pulse technique and logic circuits) at 16.6%. Families commonly carry more than one of these classes at once, so the shares add to more than 100%.

Technology composition by IPC subclassH04L · Digital information transmissi…8029.5%G06F · Electric digital data processi…6724.7%H03L · Automatic frequency/phase cont…6122.5%H03K · Pulse technique & logic circui…4516.6%G11C · Static & digital memories3312.2%H03M · Coding & code conversion3312.2%H04J · Multiplex communication269.6%H04N · Pictorial communication (video…207.4%Other14152.0%

Shares are the percentage of the 271 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 Synchronization Supply Unit Reference Clock Source Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Synchronization Supply Unit Reference Clock Source Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about synchronization supply unit reference clock source selection algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record on file

A record from the result set

First record returned
US6985552B12006-01-10

System and method for generating a reference clock (US6985552B1)

MACOM CONNECTIVITY SOLUTIONS, LLC

The abstract describes synchronizing a reference clock to a pseudorandom NRZ data stream in a clock data recovery system: sampling the data stream, determining a mean frequency of transitions and an associated transition probability, feeding these into a phase/frequency detector responsive to a VCO frequency, and using the detector output to supply a VCO tuning voltage that generates the VCO frequency, with an XOR phase element also involved.This is simply the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or most representative filing in this set.

US6985552B1, patent drawing 1US6985552B1, patent drawing 2
View full record

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 Synchronization Supply Unit Reference Clock Source Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 →
Reading the data

What the figures show

Three figures from this dataset are worth holding onto before going further: how concentrated the filer list is, how the technology terms split, and where the applications were filed.

Filer concentration
13 of 271 families
largest single filer row

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, 4.8% of families

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 13 of the 271 simple patent families in scope (4.8%). This is the single largest row in the filer list; it does not indicate claim scope, validity or commercial weight, only a count of families naming that entity.

Filer list, 96 entities listed, top 30 shown on page
Long tail
73 of 96 filers
hold 2 or fewer families each

A long tail of small filers

73 of the 96 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer, so this count, not an added percentage, is the way to describe how spread out the filing activity is.

Organisation filers only; individual-inventor filings are excluded from this list but remain in the 271-family total
Technology split
29.5% of families
H04L share of 271 families

H04L carries the largest technology share

H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 80 of the 271 families (29.5%), ahead of G06F at 24.7%, H03L at 22.5% and H03K at 16.6%. Because a family can carry several IPC classes, these shares add to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive.

IPC subclass counts, denominator = 271 simple patent families
Receiving offices
255 records
United States, the largest receiving office shown

United States carries the most filed records among those listed

Among the largest receiving offices shown, the United States carries 255 published records, ahead of the European Patent Office at 98, Japan at 53, WIPO/PCT at 49, South Korea at 44 and Australia at 22. The search returned 23 receiving offices in total; these figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.

Receiving-office counts, one record per office filed in
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 synchronization supply unit reference clock source selection 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 Synchronization Supply Unit Reference Clock Source Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Taking this further

The figures above describe what this search returned. Narrowing or re-scoping the search, or reading specific claim sets, is the way to move from pattern to decision.

Check claim scope directly

Family and IPC counts describe where filing activity sits, not what any granted claim requires. Pulling the granted claims for specific filings is the only way to assess overlap with a design.

Explore in Eureka

Track the filer list beyond the top rows

The 96 listed filers include a visible long tail alongside the largest rows. Watching how that list shifts as new records publish can surface filers not yet visible in the top 30 shown here.

Monitor filers in Eureka

Re-run with tighter terms

This search is text-driven across SSU, BITS and reference clock/source language, which pulls in adjacent circuitry fields. A narrower string against the same corpus would change the technology split shown here.

Refine the search 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 Synchronization Supply Unit Reference Clock Source Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Questions practitioners ask

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Synchronization Supply Unit Reference Clock Source Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Synchronization Supply Unit Reference Clock Source Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole synchronization supply unit reference clock source selection 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:(("synchronization supply unit" OR SSU OR BITS) AND ("reference clock" OR "reference source") AND 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 29.5% of the patent families and the set spans 52 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 619 records and 271 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 (4 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 96 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 96 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 2026-10-20.

Legal status. Legal status was not available for this search, so no in-force figure is shown. 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.