Application Security Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- Filings climbed 47% from 2021 to 2024 (141 to 207 records), with 2024 the peak year so far — momentum that predates the most recent, still-incomplete filing years.
- The leader holds 106 records but the top 5 assignees combined account for just 13.5% of all 3,176 records in scope, and the top 10 only 23.8% — a long tail dominates the rest.
- H04L and G06F cover most of the field at 57.3% and 52.2% of records respectively, while healthcare informatics (G16H) and AI-based computing (G06N) sit under 4% each.
Filing growth compares 2021 (141 records) with 2024 (207) — 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 3,176 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the application security patent record actually shows
Application security patents in this dataset sit at the intersection of two claim families: protecting a software application’s runtime and data, and the cryptographic or identity mechanisms — authentication tokens, encryption keys, trust verification — that make that protection enforceable. The search scope spans 3,176 published records from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, filed across corporate, mobile-platform and automotive-adjacent applicants.
Filing activity is not flat: it rose from 156 records in 2017 to a peak of 207 in 2024, a 47% increase over the 2021-2024 span alone. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the lower counts shown for 2025 and 2026 reflect that lag rather than a real slowdown.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 3,176-record corpus: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, the composition shares below add up to more than 100%.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Records climbed from 156 in 2017 to a peak of 207 in 2024, up 47% over the 2021-2024 window. The 2025-2026 dip reflects publication lag, not a real contraction in filing.
IPC subclass composition
H04L (digital information transmission) and G06F (electric digital data processing) each cover more than half of all records — 57.3% and 52.2% respectively — confirming that most application security claims are anchored in transmission-layer and general data-processing mechanisms rather than in domain-specific fields like healthcare informatics (G16H, 2.2%) or AI-based computing (G06N, 3.7%).
Shares are the percentage of the 3,176 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Application Security Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about application security patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and the most-cited prior art
Systems and Methods for Secure Storage on a Mobile Device (US20140337638A1)
The filing describes detecting an application security status on a mobile device, requiring a passcode when that status is active, and applying one of two different encryption keys to application data depending on whether the security status is active or not. A separate mobile device passcode status governs a further, device-level layer of protection.Filed by SuccessFactors, published 2014-11-13 — illustrative of the conditional, status-gated encryption pattern common across the corpus.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6850252B1 | Intelligent electronic appliance system and method | 4,058 |
| 2 | US20090254572A1 | Digital information infrastructure and method | 2,824 |
| 3 | US20050132070A1 | Data security system and method with editor | 1,899 |
| 4 | US20100250497A1 | Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) hardened information infrastructure with extractor, cloud dispersal, secure stora… | 1,773 |
| 5 | US20020010679A1 | Information record infrastructure, system and method | 1,634 |
| 6 | US8316237B1 | System and method for secure three-party communications | 1,620 |
| 7 | US20090018996A1 | Cross-category view of a dataset using an analytic platform | 1,559 |
| 8 | US20050044197A1 | Structured methodology and design patterns for web services | 1,459 |
| 9 | US20070053513A1 | Intelligent electronic appliance system and method | 1,452 |
| 10 | US7181017B1 | System and method for secure three-party communications | 1,316 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — read them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
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
The headline figures translate into three practical read-outs: where claim space is dense, where growth is real versus reporting lag, and how concentrated ownership actually is.
Momentum is real through 2024, not beyond it
Filings rose from 141 records in 2021 to 207 in 2024, the corpus's peak year. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the lower 2025-2026 counts are an artefact of that lag, not evidence the field is cooling.
No single assignee controls the field
The leading assignee holds 106 records, but the top 5 combined reach only 13.5% of the 3,176 records in scope, and the top 10 only 23.8%. Ownership is spread across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants.
Transmission and data-processing claims dominate
H04L and G06F together cover the majority of records, meaning most application security claims are built on transmission-security or general data-processing mechanisms rather than niche verticals.
Filing is US-centred, with EPO and PCT as secondary routes
United States receiving-office records (1,802) far exceed Europe (442) and WIPO/PCT filings (279), indicating the primary competitive battleground for freedom-to-operate is US prosecution.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to application security patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the claim gaps sit
The ranked field covers 100 companies, from platform and chipset vendors to automotive and cloud-security specialists. Ownership is concentrated enough at the top to identify clear leaders, but thin enough elsewhere to leave room for new entrants.
A single assignee leads by a wide margin
The top-ranked assignee holds 106 records, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 74 and the tenth-place holder at 55 — a steep drop-off after the top few positions.
The middle of the ranking is tightly bunched
Positions five through ten sit between 55 and 74 records, suggesting an active second tier of applicants filing at a steady but modest pace rather than a single clear runner-up.
Recent-year filing has slowed across tracked assignees
Several assignees with meaningful historical volume show flat or sharply lower activity in the latest tracked year, consistent with publication lag rather than an actual pullback from the space.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated in one cluster
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the corpus, and the strongest links cluster around a single group of related entities, indicating most applicants file independently rather than jointly.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| AS0001 INC | 1 | -94% |
| Zscaler Inc | 1 | -75% |
| NXP B.V. | 0 | — |
| Volvo Car Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| BlackBerry Limited | 0 | — |
| Qualcomm Inc | 0 | — |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | 0 | — |
| Dispersive Holdings Inc | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to three follow-on questions worth running before committing a filing strategy or freedom-to-operate opinion.
Stress-test freedom-to-operate in H04L and G06F
With 57.3% and 52.2% of records respectively, these two subclasses carry the densest prior art. Any new filing touching transmission-layer authentication or general data processing should be checked against this concentration before drafting claims.
Run a clearance search in Eureka →Track the second tier for consolidation signals
The gap between the leader (106 records) and the fifth-place holder (74) is wide, but the fifth-to-tenth band (74 to 55) is tight. Watching this tier's filing momentum could flag acquisition targets or fast-followers early.
Set up assignee monitoring in Eureka →Scope claims into under-claimed branches
Healthcare informatics and AI-based computing both sit under 4% of records despite the broader field's growth, suggesting room for narrowly scoped claims that avoid the crowded transmission-layer prior art.
Explore white space in Eureka →Common questions about application security patents
The dataset's leading assignee holds 106 records, noticeably ahead of the fifth-place holder at 74 and the tenth-place holder at 55. That said, the top 5 assignees combined account for only 13.5% of all 3,176 records in scope, and the top 10 for 23.8%, so no single company controls the field. The remainder is spread across a long tail of applicants each holding a handful of records, which means competitive monitoring needs to cover well beyond the obvious leaders.
Filing grew 47% from 141 records in 2021 to 207 in 2024, which is the peak year in the dataset. The apparent decline in 2025 and 2026 is not a real slowdown; publication typically lags the actual filing date by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years are always undercounted at the point of any data pull. Treat 2024 as the most recent year that reflects true filing volume.
H04L (digital information transmission) and G06F (electric digital data processing) dominate, covering 57.3% and 52.2% of all 3,176 records respectively — note these overlap since a single record can carry both. H04W (wireless communication networks) and G06Q (business and commerce data processing) follow at 17.1% and 13.5%. Niche verticals like healthcare informatics (G16H) and AI-based computing (G06N) each sit under 4%, marking them as comparatively open ground rather than saturated claim space.
The clearest signal is the gap between the dominant IPC subclasses and the smaller ones: H04L and G06F together exceed half of all records, while G16H, H04M, G07F and G06N each sit at or below roughly 3.7%. That gap suggests healthcare-informatics trust verification, vending/coin-freed device authentication, and AI-driven security-event classification are comparatively under-claimed relative to core transmission-security mechanisms. A first filing in one of these narrower branches is less likely to run into the densest prior art clusters.
Ownership here is moderately dispersed: the top 10 ranked assignees account for 23.8% of all 3,176 records, leaving more than three-quarters of the corpus held by a long tail of applicants outside that group. Co-filing is also rare, with only 10 co-assignee pairs identified across the whole dataset, and the strongest of those cluster around a single related group of entities. That combination — a moderate leader, a thin co-filing network, and a long tail — points to a field still open to new independent entrants rather than one locked up by a small cartel of cross-licensed players.
Research Application Security Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole application security 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.