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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/two-dimensional-qr-code-error-correction-decoding-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · AI & Machine LearningTwo-Dimensional QR Code Error Correction Decoding Patents
Analysis of 217 patent families on 2D/QR code error correction decoding, covering filer concentration, IPC mix and filing activity through 2026.
458
Published Records
217
Simple Patent Families
4%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
40%
In Force at Cut-off
458 published records collapse into 217 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. DENSO WAVE INC is named on 8 of the 217 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 In force = 185 of 458 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 217 simple patent families sit behind 458 published records on two-dimensional code error correction decoding, with no date limit applied to the search.
- DENSO WAVE INC is named on 8 of the 217 families (3.7%), the largest single filer row; a separate row, DENSO CORP, is listed apart from it.
- 88 of the 94 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, the long tail of this filer list.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This landscape draws on a search string combining QR code / two-dimensional code / 2D barcode terms with error correction and decoding or algorithm language across titles, abstracts and claims. It returns 217 simple patent families, de-duplicated across countries, and 458 published records, counted one per publication. No start year was set, so the result set spans whatever filing dates the matching documents carry; the filing-trend chart on this page shows only a recent window, not the full span.
Of the 458 published records, 185 (40%) were granted and still in force at the point the data was retrieved. That figure describes legal status at a single moment, not a measure of how many filings succeeded on their merits, status changes continuously as applications are prosecuted, lapse or expire.
Records, families and legal status at a glance
Counted over all 458 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 376 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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (DENSO WAVE INC, DENSO CORP). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (6 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 94 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 94 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 Two Dimensional QR Code Error Correction Decoding Algorithm 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 activity and technology composition
The figures below separate what is counted in published records from what is counted in simple patent families, the two are not interchangeable and this page keeps them labelled throughout.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (376 of 458 published records)
The trend runs from 2007, with 5 records, up to 2026, with 10 records, and its peak so far sits at 2017 with 54 records. Records filed from 2022 onward are still accumulating as later-filed applications continue to publish, so that stretch of the chart understates the eventual count and should not be read as a falling-off in 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 (376 records); the 458 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass composition (share of 217 simple patent families)
G06K (Data recognition & presentation) appears on 158 of the 217 families, 72.8%, the highest share of any subclass in this set. G06F (Electric digital data processing) follows at 37 families, 17.1%. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not a partition of the dataset.
Shares are the percentage of the 217 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 Two Dimensional QR Code Error Correction Decoding Algorithm 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 Two Dimensional QR Code Error Correction Decoding Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about two dimensional qr code error correction decoding algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing
A record from the result set
From the result set
Two-dimensional code error correction decoding
BEIJING SANKUAI ONLINE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD
A two-dimensional code error correction decoding method is provided. In an embodiment, a two-dimensional code image is preprocessed to obtain a data codeword for decoding; optimal parameter matching is performed based on the data codeword to obtain a corresponding interpolation severity, and interpolation is performed based on the interpolation severity to construct a binary polynomial; an optimal information polynomial is obtained based on the binary polynomial, and the optimal information polynomial is used as an information codeword; and data decoding is performed based on the information codeword to obtain original information corresponding to the two-dimensional code image.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, grant status or breadth. It is shown to illustrate the kind of claim language this search captures, not as a representative or landmark filing.
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 Two Dimensional QR Code Error Correction Decoding Algorithm 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
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 →Key figures
Reading the filer and technology data
Three figures worth checking before drawing conclusions from the ranking table.
Largest single filer row
8 of 217 families
3.7% share
DENSO WAVE INC
DENSO WAVE INC is named on 8 of the 217 simple patent families in scope, 3.7%. A separate row, DENSO CORP, is listed apart from it; the two are not merged and are not added together here, since one family can name both.
Largest single filer row by family count
Filer concentration
88 of 94 filers
2 or fewer families each
Long tail of single- and double-filing entrants
Of the 94 listed filers, 88 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The filer list contains organisations; filings held by named individuals are inside the totals but excluded from this ranked list.
Counted across the listed filer rows
Technology composition
72.8% of families
G06K subclass
G06K carries the largest share of the IPC mix
G06K (Data recognition & presentation) appears on 158 of the 217 families, 72.8%, the highest share among the subclasses shown on this page. G06F (Electric digital data processing) follows at 37 families, 17.1%. Since families can carry multiple classes, these shares are not mutually exclusive.
Share of 217 simple patent families; shares overlap
Legal status snapshot
185 of 458 records
40% in force
Status at the retrieval date
185 of the 458 published records, 40%, were granted and still in force when the data was retrieved on 2026-10-27. This is a snapshot of legal status at that date, not a success rate, and it will have shifted by the time this page is read again.
Legal status at retrieval, 2026-10-27
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 two dimensional qr code error correction decoding algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Two Dimensional QR Code Error Correction Decoding Algorithm 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
Working with this dataset further
The figures on this page describe counts and shares; they do not establish claim scope.
Pull the granted claims directly
Family and IPC counts cannot tell you what a claim requires. Reading the granted claim set of any record named here is the only way to assess its scope.
Search full records in Eureka →Track filer rows individually
Because filer rows overlap and are not rolled up to corporate group, treat each row's share as belonging only to that row, and recheck it as new filings publish.
Monitor filers 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 Two Dimensional QR Code Error Correction Decoding Algorithm 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
Frequently asked questions
This search returns 217 simple patent families and 458 published records matching terms for QR code, two-dimensional code or 2D barcode combined with error correction and decoding or algorithm language. Families count each invention once across the countries it was filed in, while records count every publication separately, so the two figures answer different questions. No date limit was applied to the search, so this set spans whatever filing dates the matching documents carry rather than a fixed window.
DENSO WAVE INC is named on 8 of the 217 families in scope, 3.7%, the largest single filer row returned by this search. A separate row, DENSO CORP, appears in the same list but is not added to DENSO WAVE INC's count since one family can name both and summing would double-count. Beyond the top rows, 88 of the 94 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is a wide spread rather than concentration in a small group.
IPC classification shows G06K, Data recognition & presentation, on 158 of the 217 families, 72.8%, the largest share of any subclass tracked on this page. G06F, Electric digital data processing, follows at 37 families, 17.1%. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these percentages overlap rather than summing to 100%, and they describe classification density, not technical maturity.
185 of the 458 published records, 40%, were granted and still in force at the retrieval date of 2026-10-27. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, but this dataset does not break out how many fall into each of those categories. Legal status changes continuously, so this figure is a snapshot rather than a fixed outcome.
The receiving-office data in this search shows the largest counts at the United States with 142 published records, China with 96, the European Patent Office with 70, the WIPO PCT route with 33, India with 28 and Japan with 22, across 19 receiving offices returned in total. These figures are counted in published records, not simple patent families, so one invention filed in several offices adds a count at each one. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
US11080500B2, titled Two-dimensional code error correction decoding and assigned to Beijing Sankuai Online Technology Co., Ltd, describes preprocessing a two-dimensional code image into a data codeword, performing parameter matching to build a binary polynomial, deriving an information polynomial, and decoding original information from it. This is simply the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by importance or breadth. An abstract and a family count cannot establish what the granted claims actually require; that has to be read from the claim set itself before drawing any conclusion about what it blocks or permits.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Two Dimensional QR Code Error Correction Decoding Algorithm 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 Two Dimensional QR Code Error Correction Decoding Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole two dimensional qr code error correction decoding algorithm patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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:(("QR code" OR "two-dimensional code" OR "2D barcode") AND ("error correction" OR "error correcting") AND (decod* OR algorithm))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 (G06K) carries 72.8% 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 458 records and 217 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 (6 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 94 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 94 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. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (185 of 458). 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.
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.