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/biometric-template-protection-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · BiometricsBiometric Template Protection Patents: Who Holds the Key Claims
- 36.3% concentration. The top 5 assignees account for 120 of 331 records in scope, with a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants behind them.
- Filing has cooled from its 2017 peak. Filings ran from 30 in 2017 to 17 in 2021 down to 6 in 2024, a -65% move over that three-year span, with 2025-2026 still filling in as publications lag filing.
- G06F and H04L dominate the claim space. 58.3% of records touch electric digital data processing and 48.3% touch digital information transmission, leaving narrower classes like G06N (3.9%) comparatively open.
331
Published Records
36%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-65%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (17 records) with 2024 (6) — 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 331 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Biometric template protection covers methods for securing the biometric data used in authentication systems — cancelable biometrics, fuzzy vault and fuzzy extractor constructions, helper data schemes, and irreversible transforms designed to keep raw fingerprint, face or iris templates from being recovered or linked across systems. The 331 records in scope span 2015 through the 2026 cut-off and were pulled using a search string that ties template-protection terminology to the specific cryptographic mechanisms — key binding, unlinkability, fuzzy vaults — that distinguish a genuine protection scheme from ordinary biometric matching.
The dataset is organised around patent families rather than raw document counts, since families neutralise the effect of aggressive continuation filing or multi-jurisdiction refiling by any single applicant. Readers using this page to plan freedom-to-operate work or to scope new claims should treat the IPC composition and assignee concentration figures below as the starting map, not the final word — publication lag means the most recent one to two years understate real filing activity.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2017-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Biometric Template Protection 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
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 composition
Two views of the same 331 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings peaked at 30 in 2017 and have declined since; 2021 (17) to 2024 (6) marks a -65% move over three years. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the apparent recent drop should not be read as the field going cold.
IPC technology composition
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears in 58.3% of the 331 records and H04L (digital information transmission) in 48.3%, confirming that most template-protection work is filed as a data-processing or cryptographic-transmission problem rather than a pure recognition problem. G06K data recognition sits at 25.1%, while G06Q, G07C, G06V, G06N and B42D each cover under 8% of records — these narrower classes carry far less claim density.
Shares are the percentage of the 331 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 Biometric Template Protection covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Biometric Template Protection with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about biometric template protection and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Most-cited records in this dataset
Representative filing
US20150095654A1 — Cryptographic key generation based on multiple biometrics
INTEL CORPORATION
The application describes an apparatus with a processor core containing multi-biometric logic that outputs biometric data derived from two or more biometric inputs captured during a common time period. Setup logic transforms a cryptographic key using that multi-biometric data, and the transformation produces helper data as output — a direct implementation of key-binding via helper data across multiple biometric modalities rather than one.Filed by Intel Corporation, published 2015-04-02.
Highest-citation records
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US9928379B1 | Methods using mediation software for rapid health care support over a secured wireless network; methods of co… | 367 |
| 2 | US20110026781A1 | System for secure face identification (SCIFI) and methods useful in conjunction therewith | 179 |
| 3 | US20070180261A1 | Biometric template protection and feature handling | 131 |
| 4 | US20090271634A1 | Bio-Cryptograhpy : Secure cryptographic protocols with bipartite biotokens | 117 |
| 5 | US20070253608A1 | Secure fingerprint matching by hashing localized information | 98 |
| 6 | US20120131350A1 | Biometric identification method | 96 |
| 7 | US20130314208A1 | Systems And Methods For Storing And Accessing Confidential Data | 86 |
| 8 | US8005277B2 | Secure fingerprint matching by hashing localized information | 81 |
| 9 | US10984128B1 | Specially adapted serving networks to automatically provide personalized rapid healthcare support by integrat… | 78 |
| 10 | US20190356491A1 | System and Method for Securing Personal Information Via Biometric Public Key | 73 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not as a marker of current commercial 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 Biometric Template Protection 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 strategy
Three patterns stand out once the assignee, trend and IPC figures are read together.
Concentration
36.3%
of 331 records held by top 5
Ownership is concentrated but not locked up
The top 5 assignees combine for 120 of the 331 records in scope (36.3%), and the top 10 reach 48.9% (162 records). That leaves just over half the field spread across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants, which is unusual concentration for a niche this technical but still leaves room for new claims outside the leader's core.
Top 10 combined: 48.9% of records
Momentum
-65%
filings, 2021 to 2024
Activity has cooled from its 2017 peak
Filings dropped from a 2017 peak of 30 to 6 in 2024, a -65% move over the 2021-2024 window. Recent-year momentum data shows several leading assignees at zero filings in the latest year, including one leader down -100% year over year — consistent with a field past its first filing wave rather than one accelerating.
Peak year: 2017 at 30 filings
Technology mix
58.3%
of records touch G06F
Claims cluster in data processing and transmission
G06F and H04L together cover the large majority of records (58.3% and 48.3% respectively), meaning most protection schemes are claimed as computational or transmission-security inventions. Classes tied to AI-based computing (G06N, 3.9%) and printed security documents (B42D, 3.0%) are comparatively thin.
G06N covers only 3.9% of records
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 biometric template protection, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Biometric Template Protection 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 is filing, and where the gaps sit
A small group of corporate and institutional filers anchor the field, with co-filing patterns showing tight inventor-assignee clusters rather than broad industry alliances.
Leader
37
records
One assignee leads by a clear margin
The top-ranked assignee holds 37 records, well ahead of fifth place at 13 and tenth place at 7 — a steep drop-off that marks this as a leader-plus-long-tail field rather than several evenly matched competitors.
Fifth place: 13 records
Co-filing
10 pairs
co-assignee pairs identified
Co-filing is inventor-anchored, not cross-industry
The strongest co-assignee pairs link one corporate filer with named individual inventors across several filings (7, 6 and 6 shared records), suggesting stable internal inventor teams rather than joint ventures between competing companies.
Strongest pair: 7 shared records
Momentum
0
latest-year filings for several leaders
Even leading assignees have gone quiet recently
Several of the most active historical filers show zero filings in the latest year, including one at -100% year over year and another at -50% year over year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this understates true recent activity but still points to a maturing rather than expanding filer base among the incumbents.
One leader: -100% YoY
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Badge Inc. | 1 | -50% |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | — |
| Hitachi, Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Majkokh Corp | 0 | — |
| Fujitsu Limited | 0 | — |
| Carmel Haifa University Economic Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Hitachi Kokusai Electric Inc. | 0 | — |
| Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Biometric Template Protection 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 analysis
The figures on this page are a starting map. Turning them into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going deeper on the specific claims and assignees involved.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's claim set
With one assignee holding 37 records and the top 5 covering 36.3% of the field, any new filing in the core G06F/H04L space should be checked against that concentrated claim set before drafting.
Explore claims in EurekaScope the under-claimed branches
G06N and B42D each cover under 4% of records, suggesting AI-assisted helper-data schemes and document-embedded tokens carry lighter prior art than the computational core.
Run a white space search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Biometric Template Protection 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 biometric template protection patents
It refers to techniques that secure the stored representation of a biometric sample — a fingerprint, face or iris template — so the original biometric cannot be reconstructed or reused if the stored data is stolen. In this dataset the core mechanisms are cancelable biometrics, fuzzy vaults, fuzzy extractors, helper data schemes and irreversible transforms, often combined with cryptographic key binding. Patents in this space typically sit in IPC classes G06F and H04L because the inventive step is usually a data-processing or transmission-security method rather than a sensor or recognition improvement.
The ranking of 331 records shows a clear leader with 37 records, well ahead of the field, followed by a rapid drop to 13 records at fifth place and 7 at tenth. The top 5 assignees combined account for 36.3% of all records, and the top 10 reach 48.9%. Beyond that, ownership spreads across a long tail of companies and institutions filing in smaller numbers, so a full competitive check should not stop at the largest few names.
Filings peaked in 2017 at 30 and declined to 6 by 2024, a -65% move over the 2021-2024 span. However, patent publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so the lower counts visible in 2025 and 2026 are provisional and will likely revise upward as more records publish. Read as a maturing field with a slower current filing pace rather than a field in outright decline based on complete years.
Approaches built around general data processing (G06F, 58.3% of records) and digital transmission security (H04L, 48.3%) have by far the densest patent coverage, meaning claim space there is more crowded. Data recognition methods (G06K) cover about a quarter of records. Narrower approaches tied to AI-based computation (G06N, 3.9%) or printed/physical document security (B42D, 3.0%) have much lighter coverage and may offer more room for a differentiated claim.
This Intel Corporation application, published 2015-04-02, claims an apparatus that derives helper data by transforming a cryptographic key using biometric data drawn from two or more distinct biometric inputs captured in the same time period. It is one of the more heavily cited records in this dataset and effectively stakes out multi-modal key-binding via helper data as a claimed approach. Anyone building a scheme that binds a cryptographic key to combined fingerprint-and-face or fingerprint-and-iris data should review its claim scope directly before assuming a single-modality workaround clears it.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Biometric Template Protection 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 Biometric Template Protection in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole biometric template protection 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.