https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/clock-and-data-recovery-circuits-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Clock & Data Recovery
Clock and Data Recovery Circuit Patents: Filing Concentration and Open Claim Space
  • 27.8% concentration at the top. The top 5 of 100 ranked assignees hold 143 of 515 records in scope — a leader at 49 filings well ahead of fifth place at 19.
  • Filing has plateaued, not grown. 2021 and 2024 both sit at 10 filings each — 0% change across that span, with 2025-2026 still filling in under publication lag.
  • H03L carries the technical core. 47.6% of records sit in automatic frequency/phase control (H03L), against 69.5% in the broader digital-transmission class H04L — the loop and PLL mechanics are where the real claim density is.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
515
Published Records
28%
Top-5 Share of All Records
0%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (10 records) with 2024 (10) — 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 515 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··8 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this landscape covers

This landscape covers 515 published records matched on clock-and-data-recovery loop design terms combined with claim or description language on jitter tolerance, loop bandwidth, phase interpolator resolution, lock time, reference clock jitter and spread spectrum tracking. Coverage runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, spanning receiving offices led by the United States (352), with meaningful activity at the EPO, WIPO, Taiwan, China and the UK.

The dataset is dominated by digital-transmission and frequency/phase-control classifications, reflecting that most CDR patenting activity sits inside SerDes, PLL and receiver-equalization architectures rather than as a standalone circuit category. Filing family counts, not raw document counts, are used for the assignee ranking so continuation and multi-jurisdiction filing do not inflate any single company's position.

Filing activity by year, 2017-2026
  1. 1AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE LTD49
  2. 2INTEL CORP26
  3. 3QUALCOMM INC26
  4. 4RAMBUS INC23
  5. 5AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD19
  6. 6REALTEK SEMICON CORP19
  7. 7XILINX INC18
  8. 8TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC17
  9. 9MARVELL ASIA PTE LTD16
  10. 10SILICON LABORATORIES INC14
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Clock and Data Recovery Circuits 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 Numbers

Filing trends and technology composition

Two views of the same 515-record set: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses when a single record can carry more than one classification.

A plateau, not a decline

Filings ran from 16 in 2017 to a peak of 24 in 2018, then settled into a lower steady band; 2021 and 2024 both recorded 10 filings, a 0% change across that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 read low because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months — treat the tail as incomplete rather than as a real drop-off.

A plateau, not a decline06131925162017242018201920202021202220232024202512026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Loop control dominates the classification mix

H04L (digital information transmission) touches 69.5% of the 515 records and H03L (automatic frequency/phase control) touches 47.6% — together they confirm that CDR patenting is anchored in transmission-link and PLL/loop-control claims. Smaller but persistent activity sits in H04B general transmission (15.7%), H03D demodulation (9.7%), H04J multiplexing (7.4%), H03K pulse/logic technique (6.0%), and measurement (G01R) and storage (G11B) at 4.9% each.

Loop control dominates the classification mixH04L · Digital information transmissi…35869.5%H03L · Automatic frequency/phase cont…24547.6%H04B · Transmission (general)8115.7%H03D · Demodulation & frequency conve…509.7%H04J · Multiplex communication387.4%H03K · Pulse technique & logic circui…316.0%G01R · Electric & magnetic measurement254.9%G11B · Information storage (magnetic/…254.9%Other10620.6%

Shares are the percentage of the 515 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 Clock and Data Recovery Circuits covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Clock and Data Recovery Circuits with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about clock and data recovery circuits and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key Patents

Representative and most-cited filings

Representative filing
US11128304B12021-09-21

US11128304B1 — Clock and data recovery device and jitter tolerance enhancement method thereof

NOVATEK MICROELECTRONICS CORP.

A clock and data recovery device and a jitter tolerance enhancement method thereof are provided. The clock and data recovery device includes a clock and data recovery circuit and a jitter tolerance enhancement circuit. A data input terminal of the clock and data recovery circuit is suitable for receiving a data signal. The clock and data recovery circuit recovers the data signal to a clock. The jitter tolerance enhancement circuit is coupled to the data input terminal of the clock and data recovery circuit to receive the data signal. The jitter tolerance enhancement circuit detects a correlation between the data signal and the clock and correspondingly adjusts a loop gain of the clock and data recovery circuit.Filed by Novatek Microelectronics, granted 2021-09-21 — an example of a jitter-tolerance enhancement circuit layered onto a conventional CDR loop rather than a new recovery topology.

US11128304B1 — patent drawing 1US11128304B1 — patent drawing 2
View full filing
Most-cited records in scope
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US20070110199A1Receive equalizer with adaptive loops188
2US5103466ACMOS digital clock and data recovery circuit145
3US20100329677A1Symbol Timing Recovery in Polarization Division Multiplexed Coherent Optical Transmission System109
4US20070001723A1Clock and data recovery circuit and method thereof109
5US6753738B1Impedance tuning circuit108
6US20120257652A1Adjusting sampling phase in a baud-rate CDR using timing skew98
7US6834367B2Built-in self test system and method for high speed clock and data recovery circuit97
8US20010016929A1Built-in self test system and method for high speed clock and data recovery circuit96
9US20150078495A1Clock and Data Recovery Having Shared Clock Generator92
10US6545507B1Fast locking CDR (clock and data recovery circuit) with high jitter tolerance and elimination of effects caus…92

Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a ranking of current technical relevance.

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 Clock and Data Recovery Circuits 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
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 →
Insights

What the numbers mean for filing strategy

Three findings that shape where a new filing is likely to clear and where it will run into dense prior art.

Concentration
27.8% / top 5
share of 515 records

The top of the field is narrow, the rest is a long tail

Five assignees hold 143 of the 515 records in scope, led by a single company at 49 filings against 19 at fifth place. Beyond the top 10 (44.1% combined), the ranking spreads across many single- and low-digit filers, typical of a component technology embedded inside larger SerDes and interface product lines.

Ranking covers 100 assignees, counted by patent family.
Momentum
10 → 10
2021 vs 2024 filings

Growth has flattened at the top

Filing volume for the period 2021-2024 shows 0% net change, and recent-year momentum data for several major holders shows zero new filings in the latest tracked year. That does not mean the technology is exhausted — it means new claim activity is concentrated in fewer hands or has shifted to adjacent, less-searched claim language.

2025-2026 figures are understated by publication lag and excluded from this comparison.
Classification mix
47.6% H03L
of 515 records

Loop and phase control is the technical centre of gravity

Nearly half of all records touch H03L automatic frequency/phase control, confirming that PLL and loop-bandwidth mechanics carry the bulk of substantive claim language, even though the broader H04L transmission class touches more records overall (69.5%) because CDR functions are usually claimed as part of a larger receiver or link.

Class shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple IPC codes.
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 clock and data recovery circuits, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Co-filing is rare in this field
AssigneeCo-assigneeShared families
Intel Corp.JOHANSEN HENRIK INGVAR2
Texas Instruments Inc.CHO JAMES B2
Texas Instruments Inc.BHAVESH BHAKTA2
Silicon Laboratories Inc.HUANG YUNTENG1
Silicon Laboratories Inc.ELDREDGE ADAM B1
Intel Corp.LIU CHIEN CHANG1
Intel Corp.HSUEH YU LI1
Intel Corp.GAO MIAOBIN1

Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, each linking a single named inventor to a corporate assignee — consistent with CDR circuit work being filed as in-house engineering output rather than joint ventures or cross-licensed development.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Clock and Data Recovery Circuits 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 claim space

The ranked leaders are large semiconductor and IP-licensing firms whose CDR portfolios sit inside broader SerDes, interface-IP or optical-transceiver businesses rather than standalone CDR product lines.

Scale leader
49 filings
leader position

One assignee holds a filing position well ahead of the field

The top-ranked assignee's 49 records are more than double the fifth-place holder's 19, indicating a sustained, multi-generation investment in CDR loop IP rather than a single product cycle's worth of filing.

Counted by patent family across 515 records.
Recent activity
1 filing
latest tracked year, top mover

Momentum has thinned across nearly every major holder

Recent-year momentum data shows most of the largest historical filers recording zero new filings in the latest tracked year, with only one of the tracked assignees showing a single new filing. This is consistent with the broader plateau in filing volume rather than any one company exiting the space.

Latest-year counts are subject to publication lag.
Filing geography
352 US
of 515 records by receiving office

Filing is US-centred with secondary EPO and Asia-Pacific activity

The United States receives more than two-thirds of tracked filings, with the EPO, WIPO/PCT, Taiwan, China and the UK forming a secondary tier. That pattern favours companies building a US-first enforcement position before extending via PCT.

Receiving office counts, not family-adjusted.
🔍
Under-claimed sub-areas worth checking before filing
These branches show thinner density in the current record set relative to the core loop-control classes.
Phase interpolator resolution scalingSpread-spectrum clock tracking loopsSub-rate lock-time accelerationReference-clock jitter injection compensationMulti-lane CDR skew calibration
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Xilinx Inc.1
Silicon Laboratories Inc.0
Broadcom Inc.0
Intel Corp.0
Rambus Inc.0
Qualcomm Inc.0
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)0
Realtek Semiconductor Corp.0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Clock and Data Recovery Circuits 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 dataset points to specific follow-up work rather than a single conclusion.

Check freedom-to-operate against the top 10

With 44.1% of all records held by 10 assignees, a new CDR filing in loop-bandwidth or lock-time claim territory should be checked against those portfolios first, since that is where claim density is thickest.

Run a freedom-to-operate scan

Watch the 2025-2026 filings as they publish

Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the apparent plateau after 2024 should be re-checked once the 2025 and 2026 cohorts finish publishing rather than treated as a confirmed slowdown.

Track filing updates

Map the under-claimed branches against your own roadmap

Phase interpolator resolution and spread-spectrum tracking show thinner density than core loop-control claims — worth a closer look if your roadmap already touches those mechanisms.

Explore white space
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Clock and Data Recovery Circuits 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 CDR patent activity

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Clock and Data Recovery Circuits 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 Clock and Data Recovery Circuits in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole clock and data recovery circuits corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.