Data Poisoning & Backdoor Defense Patents: Leaders, Trends 2026
Data Poisoning and Backdoor Defense Patents: Who Holds the Claim Space
50.0% concentration. The top 5 assignees hold 26 of the 52 records in scope — half the field sits with a small group of filers. Filings rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 9 in 2025, but the only clean year-over-year comparison the data supports is 2021 (7 filings) against 2024 (1 filing) — an 86% drop across that span. Treat 2025 and 2026 counts as still filling in.
- 1DEERE & CO10
- 2SCINTILLON INST FOR BIOMEDICAL & BIOENERGY RES5
- 3NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV RES FOUND4
- 4HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEV LP4
- 5NOKIA SOLUTIONS & NETWORKS OY3
See the full data poisoning and backdoor defense analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions about this landscape
Who are the leading patent holders in data poisoning and backdoor defense?
Across the 52 records in scope, the leading assignee holds 10 records, with the top 5 combined accounting for 26 records — exactly 50.0% of the field. The drop-off is steep: fifth place holds only 3 records, and the ranking runs to 24 companies in total. This means real leadership sits with a small group, but there is no single dominant monopoly holder above roughly a fifth of the field.
Is patent filing activity in this field growing or shrinking?
The only reliable comparison in this dataset is 2021 to 2024, where filings fell from 7 to 1, an 86% decline. Later years, including the 2025 peak of 9 filings, should be read cautiously because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 counts will keep rising as more records publish. It would be a mistake to call the field shrinking based on the most recent one or two years alone.
What technology areas dominate the IPC classification of these patents?
Material analysis and testing (G01N) and AI-model computing (G06N) are tied at the top, each covering 23.1% of the 52 records. Agricultural classes — pest control (A01M) and harvesting equipment (A01D) — are close behind at 19.2% and 17.3% respectively, an unusual mix for what reads as an AI-security topic on its face. Anyone drafting a search strategy for this space should include equipment and material-testing classes, not just pure software-security codes.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Data Poisoning and Backdoor Defense covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.