Data Lakehouse Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 26.8% of all 1,734 records in scope sit with just five assignees, while a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants fills out the rest of the ranking.
- Filings grew 42% from 2021 to 2024 (205 to 292), the last span the data can treat as complete before publication lag understates 2025-2026.
- G06F carries 65.0% of records but G06Q (29.1%) and G06N (23.9%) show the field is increasingly framed as business-logic and AI-model work, not just storage engineering.
Filing growth compares 2021 (205 records) with 2024 (292) — 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 1,734 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families published between 2015 and 2026 that combine data lakehouse, analytical data platform or data lake terminology with core data-management functions such as query processing, schema definition, record storage, search ranking or data integration. The scope is broad enough to catch platform vendors, enterprise software incumbents and industrial-automation filers who have built lakehouse claims into control-system and IoT portfolios.
1,734 records are in scope. The assignee ranking returned by the data endpoint covers 100 companies, counted by record — not a top-50 or top-100 cut chosen for this page, but the full list the underlying query returns.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,734 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Annual filings rose from 18 in 2017 to a peak of 304 in 2025. Treat 2025 and 2026 as still filling in — publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent bars will rise as later filings publish. The last span usable for a growth statement is 2021 to 2024, where filings rose 42% (205 to 292).
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 65.0% of the 1,734 records, confirming this is fundamentally a data-processing claim space. G06Q (29.1%) and G06N (23.9%) are large enough to show lakehouse claims are routinely bundled with commerce logic and AI-model processing rather than filed as standalone storage patents. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be summed.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,734 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Data Lakes & Lakehouses Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about data lakes & lakehouses patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
Data lakehouse encryption — US20260195475A1
Filed by International Business Machines Corporation, this record describes a method for data lakehouse encryption: receiving a query against data held in a lakehouse, checking whether that query is frequent against a threshold, and, if so, storing envelope-encrypted data together with a query index in a frequent-data-access database so the encrypted payload can be returned directly on a later matching query.Published 2026-07-09 — recent enough that its practical footprint in the field is still forming.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20090018996A1 | Cross-category view of a dataset using an analytic platform | 1,559 |
| 2 | US20190042988A1 | Omnichannel, intelligent, proactive virtual agent | 631 |
| 3 | US20080288889A1 | Data visualization application | 528 |
| 4 | US20080294996A1 | Customized retailer portal within an analytic platform | 517 |
| 5 | US20210342836A1 | Systems and methods for controlling rights related to digital knowledge | 467 |
| 6 | US20220366494A1 | Market orchestration system for facilitating electronic marketplace transactions | 438 |
| 7 | US20090006156A1 | Associating a granting matrix with an analytic platform | 391 |
| 8 | US20080270363A1 | Cluster processing of a core information matrix | 389 |
| 9 | US20080319829A1 | Bias reduction using data fusion of household panel data and transaction data | 385 |
| 10 | US20210133670A1 | Control tower and enterprise management platform with a machine learning/artificial intelligence managing sen… | 340 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus; read them as a signal of influence on the field, not as a ranking of current 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 filing decisions
Three patterns worth acting on before drafting a new application in this space.
The top of the field is dense, the rest is a long tail
The leader alone accounts for 194 records, and the top 10 combined hold 37.5% of all 1,734 records in scope. Below that, filing activity spreads thin across the remaining ranked companies, many with only a handful of families — meaning claim space outside the leaders' core routes is more open than the headline concentration suggests.
Growth is real but should be read on complete years only
Filings rose from 205 in 2021 to 292 in 2024, a genuine acceleration. 2025's peak of 304 and 2026's partial count should not be read as a plateau or decline — both years are still filling in as later filings publish.
Claims increasingly cross into business logic and AI
Nearly a quarter of records touch G06N (AI-model computing) and almost a third touch G06Q (business/commerce processing), alongside the 65.0% baseline in core digital data processing. A lakehouse claim drafted purely as storage architecture is competing in a shrinking slice of the field.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to data lakes & lakehouses patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where momentum is slowing
The leaders in this ranking are a mix of platform vendors, enterprise software incumbents and industrial-automation filers — but recent-year momentum data shows even the most active names cooling off, which changes how a new entrant should read 'concentration'.
One filer sits well ahead of fifth place
The leading assignee holds 194 records against 52 at fifth place and 31 at tenth — a steep drop-off that puts real distance between the top filer and the rest of the ranked field.
Recent-year filing activity is falling among named leaders
Several assignees with strong historical volume show sharp year-over-year declines in the latest year, including drops of 60% and above. Falling counts in the most recent year should be weighed against publication lag before reading them as a retreat from the space.
Co-filing is rare and concentrated in one corporate family
Only three co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and all involve related entities within a single multinational's subsidiary structure rather than cross-company collaboration. Joint filing is not yet a meaningful pattern in this field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. | 3 | -25% |
| STRONG FORCE TX PORTFOLIO 2018 LLC | 2 | -60% |
| STRONG FORCE EE PORTFOLIO 2022 LLC | 1 | -93% |
| Strong Force VCN Portfolio 2019 LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Snowflake Inc. | 0 | — |
| SAP SE | 0 | -100% |
| Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | 0 | — |
| Accenture Global Solutions Limited | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next questions rather than a single conclusion.
Map claim language against the leader's 194 records
Before filing near the top of this field, check which specific claim elements the leading assignee has already occupied versus which are held by the long tail.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaWatch the 2025-2026 publication window
Both years are still filling in under publication lag; re-check the trend once more 2025 filings have published to see whether the 2021-2024 growth rate held.
Track filing trends in EurekaTest draft claims against under-claimed branches
The gate chips above point to sub-areas with thinner coverage; running a draft claim against those branches specifically may surface more freedom to operate than a broad lakehouse search implies.
Run a white space search in EurekaCommon questions about data lakehouse patents
This landscape covers 1,734 published records filed or published between 2015 and 2026 that combine data lakehouse, analytical data platform or data lake terminology with core data-management functions like query processing or schema definition. The true figure for the entire field is larger, since any keyword-and-classification search has boundaries, but 1,734 is the scoped total this analysis is built on. Patent families, rather than raw document counts, are the fairer unit for comparing activity across jurisdictions.
The ranking is concentrated at the top: the single largest assignee holds 194 records, compared with 52 at fifth place and 31 at tenth. The top 5 assignees combined account for 26.8% of all 1,734 records in scope, and the top 10 account for 37.5%. Below that threshold, activity spreads across a long tail of assignees with far fewer filings each, so the field is not a two- or three-company contest.
Filings grew 42% from 2021 (205) to 2024 (292), the most recent span that can be treated as a complete dataset. The apparent peak of 304 in 2025 and the lower count so far in 2026 should not be read as a slowdown, because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months and both recent years are still filling in. Judged on complete years only, the trend through 2024 is upward.
G06F, electric digital data processing, appears on 65.0% of the 1,734 records and is the dominant classification. G06Q (business, commerce and administrative data processing) appears on 29.1% and G06N (AI-model computing) on 23.9%, meaning a large share of filings combine core lakehouse infrastructure with business logic or machine-learning claims rather than filing storage architecture alone. Smaller shares touch control systems, healthcare informatics and industrial applications such as robotics and plastics shaping, showing the terminology has spread into adjacent industrial patenting.
The steep drop from the top few assignees to the long tail suggests claim space outside the leaders' core routes remains comparatively open, particularly in classifications with lower overall record share such as G05B (control and regulating systems, 9.2%) and G16H (healthcare informatics, 3.9%). Co-assignee filing is also rare, with only three identified pairs in the whole dataset, indicating cross-company collaborative filing is not yet an established pattern. A new entrant is more likely to find open claim space by combining lakehouse query or schema mechanics with one of these thinner-covered domains than by competing directly in the core G06F storage space.
Research Data Lakes & Lakehouses Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole data lakes & lakehouses 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.