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/virtual-memory-page-replacement-algorithm-for-operating-systems-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent LandscapeVirtual Memory Page Replacement Patents for Operating Systems
181 patent families on virtual memory page replacement, led by one filer at 16% and a long tail of single filers.
463
Published Records
181
Simple Patent Families
16%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
US
Leading Jurisdiction
463 published records collapse into 181 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION is named on 29 of the 181 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.
- 181 simple patent families and 463 published records match this search string across operating-system paging and page-fault handling.
- One filer holds 16.0% of families International Business Machine Corporation is named on 29 of the 181 families, while 71 of the 85 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
- G06F carries 97.8% of families 177 of the 181 simple patent families carry a G06F classification, the electric digital data processing subclass.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This landscape is built from a search string targeting virtual memory or paging combined with page replacement or page fault handling inside an operating system or kernel. It returns 181 simple patent families and 463 published records, with no date limit applied to the query itself.
The filer list returned 85 organisations, counted in simple patent families, with the data endpoint capping the usable set at the top entries shown on the page. Individual inventors matched by the search are folded into every total and share below but are removed from the organisation table.
Scope at a glance
Counted over all 463 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 298 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 (MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC, MICROSOFT 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (15 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 85 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 85 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 Virtual Memory Page Replacement Algorithm for Operating Systems 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
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 data
Filing trend and technology split
Two views of the same 181-family, 463-record pool: how published records by filing year have moved, and which IPC subclasses the families sit in.
Filing trend, by published record (298 of 463 published records)
Published records run from 12 in 2007 to a peak of 35 in 2012, with 3 recorded in 2026. The years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the recent downward slope in the chart reflects publication lag rather than a drop 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 (298 records); the 463 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 177 of the 181 families, 97.8% of the set. Because a family can carry more than one IPC subclass, the chart's shares add up to more than 100% and should be read one subclass at a time.
Shares are the percentage of the 181 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 Virtual Memory Page Replacement Algorithm for Operating Systems 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 Virtual Memory Page Replacement Algorithm for Operating Systems Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about virtual memory page replacement algorithm for operating systems patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaExample record
A record from the result set
First record returned
Operating system virtual memory management for hardware transactional memory
MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC
The abstract describes an operating system deciding to unmap a first virtual page, removing that page's mapping from the virtual memory page table, and then discarding transactional memory hardware state tied to the underlying physical page. It also describes suspending hardware transactions in kernel mode and handling soft page faults without aborting a hardware transaction, resuming it on return to user mode.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited or broadest filing in the set; nothing about its ranking position is implied by that order.
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 Virtual Memory Page Replacement Algorithm for Operating Systems 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 from the dataset, reported as counted, with the limits that apply to each.
Largest filer
16.0%
of 181 families
International Business Machine Corporation named on 29 families
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 29 of the 181 simple patent families in scope, 16.0% of the total. This is a single-row figure; it is not combined with any other filer's count and says nothing about claim scope or enforceability.
Source: filer table, simple patent families
Long tail
71 of 85
filers hold 2 or fewer families
Most listed filers hold a small number of families
Of the 85 listed filers, 71 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed filer rows sum to more than the 181-family total because one family can name several filers, so the rows cannot be added into a combined share.
Source: filer table, simple patent families
Technology concentration
97.8%
of 181 families carry G06F
G06F appears on 177 of 181 families
G06F, electric digital data processing, is classified on 177 of the 181 simple patent families, 97.8% of the set. Other IPC subclasses returned by the search sit well below this share and are not broken out in prose here.
Source: IPC classification table, simple patent families
Filing record volume
463
published records
463 published records behind 181 families
The 181 simple patent families in scope correspond to 463 published records, one per publication across jurisdictions. The gap between the two counts reflects the same invention being published in multiple offices, not 463 separate inventions.
Source: record and family totals
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 virtual memory page replacement algorithm for operating systems 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 Virtual Memory Page Replacement Algorithm for Operating Systems 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
Where to take this next
The counts here establish who files and in what volume; they do not establish claim scope or freedom to operate.
Read the granted claims, not the abstract
A family count or an abstract cannot tell you what a granted claim requires. Pull the claim set directly for any family that matters to a design decision.
Open Eureka →Check filer rows individually
Related-looking rows, such as the two Microsoft entries or the two Hewlett Packard entries in this filer list, are not merged and should be checked one at a time.
Explore filers in Eureka →Track recent filings as they publish
Records from 2022 onward are still filling in because of publication lag. Revisit this view periodically rather than reading the most recent years as a drop in filing.
Monitor this topic 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 Virtual Memory Page Replacement Algorithm for Operating Systems 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
This search returns 181 simple patent families and 463 published records matching terms for virtual memory or paging combined with page replacement or page fault handling inside an operating system or kernel. The family count de-duplicates the same invention across countries, while the record count counts each publication separately, so the two numbers describe the same pool in different units. No date limit was applied to the search string, so this reflects every matching record the database holds, not a fixed year range.
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 29 of the 181 simple patent families in scope, 16.0% of the total, the largest single-row figure in the filer list. The filer list returned 85 organisations, and 74 of them hold 2 or fewer families each, so volume outside the largest row is spread thin. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, so related-looking names such as the two Microsoft rows or the two Hewlett Packard rows in this list are counted separately and are never added together.
G06F, electric digital data processing, is classified on 177 of the 181 simple patent families, 97.8% of the set, which is the only subclass this dataset supports discussing in detail. A family can carry more than one IPC subclass, so classification shares add up to more than 100% of the total and should be read one subclass at a time rather than summed. The search returned nine subclasses in all; the ones below G06F sit at a much lower share and are not broken out here.
This page does not show a growth rate for this dataset, and none should be inferred from the filing-trend numbers alone. Published records ran from 12 in 2007 to a peak of 35 in 2012, with 3 recorded in 2026, but the years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings work through publication delay. Reading the recent downward slope as a decline in filing activity would misread a publication-lag effect as a market trend.
The abstract for US20120284485A1, filed by Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, describes an operating system unmapping a virtual page, discarding transactional memory hardware state tied to the underlying physical page, and handling soft page faults without aborting a hardware transaction. It is the first record returned under this search's default ordering, not the most cited or broadest filing in the set, and nothing about its ranking position should be read from that fact. An abstract and a family count cannot establish what the granted claims actually require; that has to be read from the claim set itself.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Virtual Memory Page Replacement Algorithm for Operating Systems 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 Virtual Memory Page Replacement Algorithm for Operating Systems Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole virtual memory page replacement algorithm for operating systems 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:(("virtual memory" OR paging) AND ("page replacement" OR "page fault") AND ("operating system" OR kernel))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 (G06F) carries 97.8% 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 463 records and 181 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 (15 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 85 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 85 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.