Gate-Level Netlist Optimization Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
A patent landscape review of gate-level netlist optimization covering assignee concentration, filing trends, IPC composition and white space across 236 records published 2015-2026.
Filing growth = 2021 (3 records) → 2024 (6); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 236 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Gate-level netlist optimization sits at the intersection of logic synthesis and physical design: restructuring, resynthesizing or remapping a netlist to hit timing, area or power targets after the logic network already exists. This landscape draws on 236 published records filed between 2015 and 2026, gathered from title/abstract and claims text matching netlist, gate-level and logic-synthesis optimization language alongside timing, area and power qualifiers. Patent families, not raw filings, are the fairer unit here because they neutralise continuation practice and multi-jurisdiction duplication.
The scope leans heavily on US filings, with the WIPO/PCT, Chinese, Indian, European and German offices contributing smaller but active shares. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend chart will always look thinner than they will eventually be once later publications catch up.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 236-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the records are actually claimed under.
Filing activity, 2017-2026
Filings climbed from 7 in 2017 to a peak of 15 in 2022, then eased; the 2021-to-2024 span shows filings roughly doubling from 3 to 6, which is the most recent stretch that can be read as a complete trend given publication lag. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as provisional undercounts rather than evidence of a slowdown.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G06F (electric digital data processing) covers 96.6% of the 236 records, confirming this is overwhelmingly an EDA-software domain. H01L (semiconductor devices, 8.1%), G01R (electric and magnetic measurement, 5.5%) and G06N (AI-based computing, 3.4%) trail well behind, marking smaller but present cross-filing into device, test and machine-learning-assisted design territory. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be read as a partition of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 236 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on EDA & Chip Design: Gate-Level Netlist Optimization Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about eda & chip design: gate-level netlist optimization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
US9646126B1 — Post-routing structural netlist optimization for circuit designs (Xilinx, 2017-05-09)
Post-routing processing of a circuit design may include determining, using a processor, a baseline delay for a path of a routed circuit design, comparing, using the processor, the baseline delay of the path with a timing constraint of the path, and selectively applying, according to the comparing, a structural netlist optimization to the path resulting in an optimized path using a processor.Filed after routing rather than before it — the claim scope turns on applying structural changes to an already-routed path once a timing constraint comparison flags a violation.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6324678B1 | Method and system for creating and validating low level description of electronic design | 272 |
| 2 | US5933356A | Method and system for creating and verifying structural logic model of electronic design from behavioral desc… | 266 |
| 3 | US7225423B2 | Method for automated design of integrated circuits with targeted quality objectives using dynamically generat… | 246 |
| 4 | US20080168406A1 | Methods and apparatuses for thermal analysis based circuit design | 213 |
| 5 | US5903466A | Constraint driven insertion of scan logic for implementing design for test within an integrated circuit design | 165 |
| 6 | US20010010090A1 | Method for design optimization using logical and physical information | 164 |
| 7 | US6360356B1 | Creating optimized physical implementations from high-level descriptions of electronic design using placement… | 162 |
| 8 | US7337100B1 | Physical resynthesis of a logic design | 150 |
| 9 | US5491640A | Method and apparatus for synthesizing datapaths for integrated circuit design and fabrication | 119 |
| 10 | US6622291B1 | Method and apparatus for physical budgeting during RTL floorplanning | 107 |
Citation counts favour older filings inside a searched corpus and should be read as a signal of influence on downstream design tools, not as a marker of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
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 →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 →What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Four readings of the same dataset, aimed at where to file, who to watch and what is genuinely open.
Claim space is concentrated at the top
Five assignees account for 103 of the 236 records in scope, and the top ten combined reach 57.6%. A new entrant filing broad netlist-restructuring claims is filing directly into prior art held by a small group of established EDA and semiconductor players.
Activity has roughly doubled, not slowed
The peak year so far is 2022 at 15 filings, and the 2021-to-2024 span shows filings doubling. Because publication lags filing by about 18 months, the softer-looking 2025-2026 counts are provisional and should not be read as declining interest.
This is a software-method field, not a device field
Almost every record carries a G06F digital-data-processing classification, while device-level (H01L), measurement (G01R) and AI-assisted (G06N) classes are minority cross-filings. Drafting strategy should follow that: claims anchored in circuit-design methodology carry the weight here, not physical structure.
Filing activity is centred on the US office
The United States receives far more filings than WIPO/PCT, China, India, Europe or Germany combined in this dataset. Defensive filers targeting this space should treat US prosecution history as the primary prior-art pool to clear before drafting new claims.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to eda & chip design: gate-level netlist optimization patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a few concrete next steps depending on what you are trying to decide.
Map your own claims against the top assignees
If you are drafting in netlist restructuring, technology mapping or timing/area/power optimization, run your draft claims against the records held by the leading five assignees before filing.
Explore assignee claim coverage in EurekaTrack the 2022 peak and post-peak filings
Filings peaked in 2022 at 15; understanding what shifted in the years around that peak helps separate a genuine technology pivot from ordinary filing noise.
Build a custom filing trend in EurekaWatch the G06N cross-filing
AI-based computing (G06N) already touches 3.4% of records — a small but present signal of machine-learning-assisted netlist optimization entering an otherwise classical EDA field.
Monitor emerging IPC overlap in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The assignee ranking for this dataset covers 92 companies across 236 records, with the leader holding 31 records and the field concentrating quickly: the top five combined hold 103 records, or 43.6% of all records in scope, and the top ten reach 57.6%. This is a field dominated by established EDA tool vendors and large semiconductor companies rather than a fragmented long tail. A new filer should expect to be drafting around claims already held by these leaders rather than into open space.
Filings roughly doubled from 3 in 2021 to 6 in 2024, and the peak year recorded so far is 2022 with 15 filings. Because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the lower counts visible in 2025 and 2026 are provisional undercounts, not evidence of a real slowdown. Any conclusion about the field cooling off should wait until those years have had time to fully publish.
Almost all records, 96.6% of 236, carry a G06F classification for electric digital data processing, confirming this is filed predominantly as EDA software methodology. Smaller shares fall under H01L for semiconductor devices (8.1%), G01R for electric and magnetic measurement (5.5%), and G06N for AI-based computing (3.4%), reflecting cross-filing into device, test and machine-learning-assisted design work. Because a record can carry multiple IPC codes, these percentages overlap rather than summing to a whole.
The United States receives the largest share of filings in this dataset with 172 records, well ahead of WIPO/PCT filings at 19, China at 14, India at 12, Europe at 11 and Germany at 3. This distribution suggests the US is both the primary market and the primary prior-art pool for anyone assessing freedom to operate in this space. Filers targeting global protection should still expect the PCT and Chinese offices to matter for downstream national-phase strategy.
US9646126B1, assigned to Xilinx and filed in 2017, claims a post-routing structural netlist optimization: comparing a routed path's baseline delay against a timing constraint and selectively applying a structural change to fix violations after routing is complete. It does not claim pre-routing or synthesis-stage optimization, so approaches that resolve timing before routing, or through non-structural techniques such as parameter or voltage adjustment, sit outside its literal scope. Anyone filing in this space should check whether their optimization step occurs before or after routing, since that boundary is where this patent's claims stop applying.
Research EDA & Chip Design: Gate-Level Netlist Optimization Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole eda & chip design: gate-level netlist optimization patent landscape 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.