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 →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 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.
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.
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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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%.
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 EurekaThe 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.


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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 EurekaThe 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 EurekaThis 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 EurekaThis search returns 619 published records, which collapse to 271 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. No date limit was applied, so this reflects every matching record in the corpus regardless of filing year rather than a fixed window. The gap between the two numbers is normal for any technology filed internationally, since each country filing of the same invention adds another published record without adding another family.
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is named on 13 of the 271 simple patent families in scope, the largest single row in a filer list of 96 organisations returned by this search. That figure is a family count only; it does not establish claim scope, validity or commercial strength, and filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and any subsidiaries appear as separate rows. Beyond the largest few rows, 73 of the 96 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is a more informative way to describe the spread than adding rows together.
Four IPC subclasses carry a visible share of the 271 families: H04L (digital information transmission) at 29.5%, 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%. Because many families carry more than one of these classes, the shares add to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive categories. The search touches 52 subclasses in total, but only these four sit at a level worth characterising from this dataset.
The filing trend chart should not be read that way. It counts published records by earliest filing year, and records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings work through publication lag, which runs up to roughly 18 months for most routes and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. The apparent drop in the most recent years reflects that incompleteness rather than any change in filing behaviour, and the dataset is not large enough here to support a growth or acceleration claim either way.
Among the largest receiving offices in this dataset, the United States carries 255 published records, ahead of the European Patent Office at 98, Japan at 53, the WIPO/PCT route at 49, South Korea at 44 and Australia at 22. The search returned 23 receiving offices in total, so these six are the largest rather than the complete picture. This breakdown describes where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, since no nationality or country-of-origin data for filers is available in this dataset.
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.
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.
This page