Database Systems Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 33.3% of the field sits with five companies. 7,380 of 22,159 records in scope trace to the top five assignees — the rest is a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants.
- Filing volume has plateaued, not collapsed. From 1,178 records in 2021 to 1,147 in 2024, a -3% shift — flat at a high base rather than a field in decline.
- Nearly every record touches core data processing. 80.7% of records carry a G06F classification, while AI-adjacent G06N appears in only 6.3% — the join between the two is comparatively thin.
Filing growth compares 2021 (1,178 records) with 2024 (1,147) — 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 22,159 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape draws on 22,159 published records filed between 2015 and the current data cut-off, searched across database management systems, data storage engines, query indexing and record-storage claims. The scope spans query index, data schema, record storage, search ranking and related filing language, so it captures both foundational DBMS architecture and the query-processing layer built on top of it.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate true filing activity — treat 2025 and 2026 figures as provisional rather than a sign of slowdown.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 22,159 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim language.
A decade of filing activity
Volume rose from 1,004 records in 2017 to a peak of 1,419 in 2022, then held roughly flat — 1,178 in 2021 against 1,147 in 2024, a -3% move across that span. The 2025-2026 figures are still filling in and should not be read as a drop.
Where the claims sit
G06F (electric digital data processing) covers 80.7% of records, the clear technical core. H04L (digital transmission), G06Q (business/commerce processing) and G06N (AI-based computing) each appear in a meaningful minority of records, showing where database claims overlap with networking, commercial applications and AI — but none approaches G06F's density.
Shares are the percentage of the 22,159 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Database Systems Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about database systems patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing
US8452804B2 — Database management system employing a relational datastore and multi-dimensional database for query servicing
A database management system services query statements from client machines through a query interface. A query handling mechanism extracts dimensions from each request, retrieves aggregated fact data from a multi-dimensional database, and forwards it for further processing. When servicing requires data held in relational tables, the query processing mechanism draws on the relational datastore instead — so a single system can transparently service queries against either a relational or a multi-dimensional backing store.Filed by Intellectual Ventures Assets 114 LLC; granted 2013-05-28.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5862325A | Computer-based communication system and method using metadata defining a control structure | 2,709 |
| 2 | US6571282B1 | Block-based communication in a communication services patterns environment | 2,353 |
| 3 | US6804330B1 | Method and system for accessing CRM data via voice | 2,336 |
| 4 | US20100070448A1 | System and method for knowledge retrieval, management, delivery and presentation | 1,798 |
| 5 | US5347653A | System for reconstructing prior versions of indexes using records indicating changes between successive versi… | 1,773 |
| 6 | US20100332401A1 | Performing data storage operations with a cloud storage environment, including automatically selecting among … | 1,745 |
| 7 | US20020010679A1 | Information record infrastructure, system and method | 1,634 |
| 8 | US8316237B1 | System and method for secure three-party communications | 1,620 |
| 9 | US20090018996A1 | Cross-category view of a dataset using an analytic platform | 1,559 |
| 10 | US20030126136A1 | System and method for knowledge retrieval, management, delivery and presentation | 1,532 |
Citation counts are a signal of influence within this searched corpus, not of current commercial relevance — older records accumulate citations simply by being available longer to cite.
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 read-outs from the dataset that matter for where to file, who to watch, and what is already crowded.
The top of the field is dense, the rest is thin
Five companies hold a third of all records in scope, and the top ten hold 46.0%. Below that the ranking thins quickly into single- and few-filing entrants, which means core DBMS architecture claims are heavily pre-empted while adjacent, more specific claim language still has room.
Flat volume at a high base, not a retreat
The three-year change is -3%, essentially a plateau after the 2022 peak of 1,419. Individual leaders show sharper year-on-year drops in the latest partial year, but that pattern is consistent with publication lag rather than an actual pullback from the space.
AI-database convergence is still a minority claim
Core data-processing classification (G06F) dominates the corpus, while AI-model classification (G06N) appears in a much smaller share of records. Filings that combine indexing or query-processing claims with AI-model language are proportionally rare, which is where freedom-to-operate analysis should start for anyone building AI-native data infrastructure.
Filing activity concentrates heavily in the US
The United States receives far more filings than the EPO, WIPO/PCT, Australia, Canada or the UK combined in this dataset. A company benchmarking freedom-to-operate outside the US should not assume US-heavy prior art density transfers directly to other jurisdictions.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to database systems patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground
The assignee ranking spans 100 companies counted by record volume. A handful of large technology and enterprise-software vendors sit at the top; most of the ranking is a long tail of narrower filers.
A single leader well ahead of the field
The leading assignee's record count is well clear of second place, consistent with a company that has filed continuously across DBMS architecture, indexing and query-processing claims for years rather than entering opportunistically.
A cluster of enterprise and cloud vendors
Positions two through five sit closer together than the gap to the leader suggests, reflecting a cluster of enterprise software and cloud infrastructure vendors filing at comparable volume rather than one company running away with the category.
Latest-year counts are misleadingly low across the board
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum shows a sharp year-on-year decline in the latest partial year, including the most active recent filer. That pattern is expected given publication lag and should not be read as any of these companies exiting the space.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| OCIENT HOLDINGS LLC | 9 | -80% |
| Oracle International Corporation | 2 | -89% |
| Snowflake Inc. | 2 | -95% |
| Google LLC | 2 | -33% |
| Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | 2 | -88% |
| SAP SE | 1 | -95% |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | 0 | -100% |
| Splunk Inc. | 0 | -100% |
Taking this further
The trends and rankings above are a starting point. Turning them into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means drilling into specific claim families.
Check freedom to operate before drafting claims
Run the specific query-processing or indexing mechanism you plan to claim against the leading assignees' portfolios rather than the category as a whole — concentration at the top means generic DBMS claims are far more contested than narrow ones.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaTrack the AI-database convergence gap
G06N's comparatively small overlap with this corpus suggests the AI-assisted indexing and query-optimisation space is still open. Monitor filing volume there rather than assuming it mirrors the core G06F trend.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaWatch jurisdiction beyond the US
With US filings dominating the receiving-office breakdown, a company planning EPO, PCT or UK coverage should map its own claim language against that regional prior art separately rather than extrapolating from US density.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaCommon questions about database systems patents
Across the scope tracked here, 22,159 records were published between 2015 and the current data cut-off, covering database management systems, data storage engines, query indexing and record-storage claims. Filing volume rose from 1,004 records in 2017 to a peak of 1,419 in 2022, then held roughly flat through 2024. The 2025 and 2026 figures in this dataset are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so they should not be read as a decline.
The assignee ranking covers 100 companies by record volume, with the top five accounting for 33.3% of all 22,159 records in scope and the top ten accounting for 46.0%. The leading assignee alone holds 1,742 records, well ahead of the rest of the field, while positions two through five cluster more closely together. Below the top ten, the ranking thins into a long tail of companies filing at much lower volume.
Filing volume peaked at 1,419 records in 2022 and has since settled to a level close to, but slightly below, that peak — 1,178 records in 2021 versus 1,147 in 2024, a -3% change over that span. That reads as a plateau at a high base rather than genuine decline. Because the most recent one to two years of any patent dataset are undercounted due to publication lag, any apparent drop after 2024 should be treated with caution rather than as evidence of a shrinking field.
The technology composition data shows G06F (core data processing) present in 80.7% of records, while G06N (AI-based computing) appears in only 6.3% — a much smaller overlap than the size of the AI field generally would suggest. That gap points to under-claimed territory in AI-assisted indexing, query optimisation and schema-evolution tooling that combines database mechanics with learned models. Healthcare informatics (G16H) and image/video recognition (G06V) also show comparatively low record density relative to the core, suggesting narrower but still open claim space in domain-specific database applications.
US8452804B2 claims a database management system that services query statements by extracting dimensions from a request, retrieving aggregated fact data from a multi-dimensional database, and falling back to a relational datastore when the query needs relationally stored data — all transparent to the client machine. It is a specific architectural mechanism for bridging multi-dimensional and relational backing stores, not a claim over query processing or indexing generally. Anyone building a system that routes queries between different storage models should review its claim language closely, but it does not by itself foreclose alternative approaches to hybrid query servicing that use different routing or extraction logic.
Research Database Systems Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole database systems 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.