https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/turbo-code-iterative-decoding-architecture-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Telecommunications

Turbo Code Iterative Decoding Architecture Patents

A small set of turbo code iterative decoding filings: 8 families, 26 records, and two filers tied at the top.

26
Published Records
8
Simple Patent Families
US
Leading Jurisdiction
6
Filers Listed (max 100)

26 published records collapse into 8 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country.

  • 8 simple patent families and 26 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search string.
  • ICOMM TECH and TURBOCODE LLC are tied at the top of the filer list, each named on 2 of the 8 simple patent families (25.0%).
  • United States receiving-office filings account for 15 of the 26 published records, ahead of WIPO (PCT) at 5 and Europe (EPO) and India at 2 each.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This search combines turbo code or turbo codes with iterative decoding or iterative decoder and the term architecture, applied across titles, abstracts and claims. It returns 26 published records that collapse to 8 simple patent families once duplicate filings of the same invention across jurisdictions are removed. No date limit was set, so the result set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in.

At 8 families, this is a small pool. The figures below describe what the search returned, not a map of the field: treat this page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a verdict on who has filed what.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. ICOMM TECH2
  2. TURBOCODE LLC2
  3. NOKIA CORP1
  4. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC1
  5. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP1
  6. CAMBRIDGE INST OF TECH BENGALURU1

Counted over all 26 published records, including filings from before 2008; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 12 records from 2008 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 6 of the 6 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 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 Turbo Code Iterative Decoding Architecture 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
The numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 8 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (12 of 26 published records)

The chart runs from 2008, where 6 records appear, through to 2026. Records from 2022 onward are shaded because publication typically lags filing by 18 to 30 months, so the most recent years are still filling in and should not be read as a drop-off. 2008 is the highest year shown in this window, but 14 records filed earlier sit outside the chart, so it is not a the highest year shown.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (12 of 26 published records)023566200820102012201420162018202020222024120262022 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 2008-2026 (12 records); the 26 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2008 is the highest year shown, but it is also the first year in the window: earlier filings sit outside this chart, so this is not necessarily the historical peak.

IPC subclass composition (share of 8 simple patent families)

H03M, covering coding and code conversion, appears on 7 of the 8 families (87.5%). H04L, covering digital information transmission, appears on 4 of the 8 families (50.0%). Because a family can carry more than one classification, these two shares add up to more than 100%, and the chart shows further subclasses at lower shares that are not discussed here.

IPC subclass composition (share of 8 simple patent families)H03M · Coding & code conversion787.5%H04L · Digital information transmissi…450.0%

Shares are the percentage of the 8 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 Turbo Code Iterative Decoding Architecture 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 Turbo Code Iterative Decoding Architecture Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about turbo code iterative decoding architecture patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

One record from the result set

First record returned, database default order
US20030084398A12003-05-01

High speed turbo codes decoder for 3G using pipelined SISO log-map decoders architecture

TURBOCODE LLC

US20030084398A1 describes a Turbo Codes Decoder that uses diversity processing, combining signals from two separate antennas and making use of multipath signals arriving via different routes. The abstract states this can increase signal-to-noise ratio by more than 6dB, supporting 3G data rates up to 2 Mbit/s, and describes two parallel Turbo Codes Decoder blocks intended for ASIC or DSP implementation.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing. Its abstract describes what is claimed at a high level; what the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself.

US20030084398A1, patent drawing 1US20030084398A1, 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 Turbo Code Iterative Decoding Architecture 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 →
Reading the data

What the figures show

Three facts about this dataset, each reported from a single figure in the evidence.

Scope
8 families / 26 records
Simple patent families vs. published records

A small, undated pool

The search returns 26 published records that de-duplicate to 8 simple patent families, with no date limit applied. Record counts and family counts are different units counted differently and should not be swapped for each other.

Source: evidence summary totals
Filer concentration
25.0%
ICOMM TECH's share of 8 families

Two filers tied at the top

ICOMM TECH and TURBOCODE LLC are each named on 2 of the 8 simple patent families, a 25.0% share apiece. The remaining listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each; filer rows can overlap because one family may name more than one filer, so these rows are never added together.

Source: filer list, 6 entities listed
Filing location
15 of 26
Published records filed at the US receiving office

Receiving offices, not nationality

Of the 26 published records, 15 were filed at the United States receiving office, 5 through WIPO (PCT), 2 each at the EPO and India, and 1 each in Australia and Canada. This describes where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.

Source: receiving office breakdown, 6 offices
Technology mix
87.5% / 50.0%
H03M and H04L share of 8 families

Two IPC subclasses cover most families

H03M (coding and code conversion) appears on 7 of 8 families and H04L (digital information transmission) on 4 of 8. Because one family can carry both classifications, these shares add to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive.

Source: IPC composition table
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 turbo code iterative decoding architecture 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 Turbo Code Iterative Decoding Architecture 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

Going beyond this page

This page reports counts from one search string. Confirming any of the patterns above against claim language takes a closer read.

Pull the granted claims

Family and record counts cannot establish what any single patent covers. Reading the claim set of a record like US20030084398A1 directly is the only way to know what it requires.

Open Patsnap Eureka

Check for filers outside this list

The filer list returned here holds organisations; filings by named individuals sit inside the totals but not the table. A targeted search can surface them.

Run a deeper search 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 Turbo Code Iterative Decoding Architecture 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

Common questions about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Turbo Code Iterative Decoding Architecture 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 Turbo Code Iterative Decoding Architecture Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole turbo code iterative decoding architecture 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:(("turbo code" OR "turbo codes") AND ("iterative decoding" OR "iterative decoder") AND architecture)

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 (H03M) carries 87.5% 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 26 records and 8 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 6 of the 6 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 6 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 2026-10-27.

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.

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.