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://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/change-data-capture-pipelines-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Stream ProcessingChange Data Capture Pipeline Patents: Who Files, What They Claim, and Where Gaps Remain
- Concentrated at the top. Five companies hold 58.9% of the 594 records in scope, and ten hold 75.4% — a narrow set of assignees shapes nearly the whole field.
- Filing growth has cooled. Annual filings fell from 64 in 2021 to 44 in 2024, a 31% drop over that three-year span, after peaking at 77 in 2019.
- Almost all claim compute, few claim transport. 94.3% of records sit in G06F (digital data processing) but only 13.8% touch H04L (digital information transmission), leaving network-layer claims comparatively open.
594
Published Records
59%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-31%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (64 records) with 2024 (44) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 594 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset gathers 594 published records matching change data capture and transaction-log terminology combined with schema-change, snapshot, ordering-guarantee, backpressure, duplicate-suppression and replication-lag language. It spans filings from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, though the most recent one to two years are understated because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months. The scope captures both database-vendor patents on log-based replication and cloud-platform patents on materialized view maintenance and event delivery.
Filing activity peaked in 2019 and has since declined toward a lower, steadier volume, consistent with a field where core mechanisms — snapshotting, lock replication, ordering guarantees — were staked out early and later filings refine rather than redefine them. Receiving-office data shows the United States as the dominant venue, with Europe, the WIPO PCT route, and India carrying meaningful but much smaller volumes.
Filing volume and assignee concentration, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Change Data Capture Pipelines covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 594 records: how filing volume moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims fall under.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings ran from 34 in 2017 up to a peak of 77 in 2019, then eased down; the 2021-to-2024 span, the most recent period with complete data, shows a 31% decline from 64 to 44 filings. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and should not be read as a continued fall.
IPC subclass distribution
G06F (electric digital data processing) covers 94.3% of the 594 records, confirming this is fundamentally a data-processing field; H04L (digital transmission) appears in 13.8%, and G06Q, G16H, G11B, H01L and H04B each account for under 2%. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 594 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Change Data Capture Pipelines covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Change Data Capture Pipelines with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about change data capture pipelines and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Most-cited records and a representative filing
Representative Filing
US11899659B2 — Dynamically adjusting performance of materialized view maintenance
AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
The maintenance of a materialized view created and managed by a materialized view management platform may be dynamically adjusted. The performance of updates to a materialized view are monitored to trigger different events to make adjustments to the performance of subsequent updates. The platform can adequately scale to handle changes to data sources as inputs to the maintenance of the materialized view, as well as make other adjustments to handle various changes in the capability of the target data store to receive updates (e.g., target data store outages).Filed by Amazon Technologies, Inc., granted 2024-02-13.
Highest-citation records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20100191884A1 | Method for replicating locks in a data replication engine | 654 |
| 2 | US7962458B2 | Method for replicating explicit locks in a data replication engine | 287 |
| 3 | US20060224636A1 | Page recovery using volume snapshots and logs | 233 |
| 4 | US20150212893A1 | Single snapshot for multiple applications | 180 |
| 5 | US20150212897A1 | Snapshot readiness checking and reporting | 167 |
| 6 | US7082435B1 | Method and mechanism for implementing and accessing virtual database table structures | 161 |
| 7 | US20150212895A1 | Generating mapping information for single snapshot for multiple applications | 159 |
| 8 | US20080195672A1 | System and program product for sequential coordination of external database application events with asynchron… | 159 |
| 9 | US20190171650A1 | System and method to improve data synchronization and integration of heterogeneous databases distributed acro… | 150 |
| 10 | US5603024A | Lossless distribution of time series data in a relational data base network | 144 |
Citation counts inside this corpus skew toward older filings and should be read as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a measure of current commercial importance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Change Data Capture Pipelines covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift 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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Four patterns stand out once concentration, technology mix and citation weight are read together.
Concentration
58.9% top 5
of 594 records
A small group sets the terms
The leader alone holds 114 records, and the top five combined account for 58.9% of all 594 records in scope. A new entrant is not filing into open ground; it is filing around positions already staked by a handful of database and cloud platform vendors.
Top 10 reach 75.4% of records
Filing pace
-31%
2021 → 2024
Volume has eased from its peak
Filings peaked at 77 in 2019 and, over the last fully-lagged period, fell from 64 in 2021 to 44 in 2024. That is a maturing core mechanism, not an abandoned one — the drop tracks a field where lock replication and snapshot handling are largely settled.
Peak year: 2019 at 77 filings
Technology mix
94.3% G06F
of 594 records
Claims sit on compute, not transport
Almost every record touches G06F digital data processing, while only 13.8% touch H04L transmission. Classes like G16H healthcare informatics and H01L semiconductor devices each sit under 1%, marking them as largely unclaimed adjacent territory rather than saturated ground.
H04L present in 13.8% of records
Citation weight
654 citations
top-cited record
Foundational lock-replication art still anchors the field
The most-cited record, on replicating locks in a data replication engine, carries 654 citations — well ahead of the next-ranked records. New filings in ordering-guarantee and lock-handling claims are almost certainly built, directly or indirectly, on this prior art.
Second-ranked record: 287 citations
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 change data capture pipelines, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Change Data Capture Pipelines covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who holds the ground, and where it is open
The ranked list covers 67 companies counted by record; momentum in the latest year is thin across the board, which is consistent with publication lag rather than a real pullback.
Scale leader
114 records
leader's total
One assignee sets the volume benchmark
The top-ranked assignee holds 114 of the 594 records — more than double the fifth-place total of 38. That gap signals a company treating CDC infrastructure as core rather than adjacent IP.
Fifth place: 38 records
Mid-field
12 records
tenth place
A steep drop after the top ten
Filing volume falls off sharply after the top ten assignees, who together hold 75.4% of the 594 records. Beyond that point the ranking spreads across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants.
Top 10 combined: 448 records
Momentum
0% to -100%
latest-year YoY
Latest-year activity looks flat or falling
Recent-year filings from several major assignees show 0 records with -100% year-over-year change, and even the most active shows only 1 filing at 0% YoY. This reflects publication lag more than a genuine stop in filing.
Read latest-year figures as provisional
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | 1 | 0% |
| Commvault Systems, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Snowflake Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| International Business Machines Corporation | 0 | — |
| Amazon Technologies, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Oracle International Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| British Gas Holdings Limited | 0 | — |
| Netflix, Inc. | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Change Data Capture Pipelines covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this next
The landscape points to next steps for both freedom-to-operate checks and white-space scoping.
Map claims against the top-ten assignees
With 75.4% of records held by ten companies, any new filing in core CDC mechanisms should be checked claim-by-claim against that group before drafting.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaScope the transmission-layer gap
H04L coverage sits at just 13.8% of records against 94.3% for G06F, suggesting backpressure and ordering-guarantee claims at the network layer are comparatively open.
Run a white-space search in EurekaTrack post-2024 filings as they publish
2025 and 2026 filings are still incomplete due to publication lag; revisit the trend once those years fill in before drawing conclusions about slowing activity.
Set a filing alert in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Change Data Capture Pipelines covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on CDC pipeline patents
The ranking covers 67 assignees, with the leader holding 114 of the 594 records in scope — more than double the fifth-place total of 38. The top five combined account for 58.9% of all records, and the top ten reach 75.4%, so a small group of database and cloud infrastructure vendors controls most of the documented claim space. Anyone entering this field should expect to file around positions already held by these leaders rather than into open ground.
Filings peaked at 77 in 2019 and, over the most recent complete period, fell from 64 in 2021 to 44 in 2024, a 31% decline. That pattern looks more like a maturing core mechanism than an abandoned one, since foundational techniques like log-based replication and snapshot handling were largely staked out in the earlier peak years. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so they should not be read as a continued drop.
US11899659B2, assigned to Amazon Technologies and granted 2024-02-13, covers dynamically adjusting the performance of materialized view maintenance in response to monitored update performance and changes in the target data store's capacity to receive updates. It is framed around a materialized view management platform that scales its update behaviour to handle data source changes and target outages. For anyone building adaptive materialized-view refresh logic, this claim scope is worth checking closely before finalising an implementation.
IPC composition shows 94.3% of the 594 records in G06F (digital data processing) but only 13.8% in H04L (digital transmission), with G16H healthcare informatics, G11B storage and H01L semiconductor classes each under 1%. That gap suggests transport-layer mechanisms such as backpressure signalling and duplicate suppression across network boundaries, along with healthcare-specific CDC pipelines, are comparatively open relative to the dense compute-layer claim space. These are reasonable areas to scope a first claim rather than compete directly against the core assignees.
The top-cited record in this dataset, on replicating locks in a data replication engine, carries 654 citations, and the next several highest-cited records also date from earlier filing years. Citation counts accumulate over time within a searched corpus, so older records naturally out-cite newer ones regardless of current commercial relevance. Treat high citation counts as a marker of foundational influence on later filers, not as a ranking of which patents matter most today.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Change Data Capture Pipelines covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Change Data Capture Pipelines in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole change data capture pipelines corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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 inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. 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, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently 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.
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.