Digital Product Passport Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- Filing is still accelerating, not maturing: the midpoint year of 2022 recorded zero filings before activity climbed to a peak of 9 in 2024.
- China dominates the filing venue, with 20 of 31 records routed through the China receiving office versus 5 in India and single digits elsewhere.
- The field is business-process heavy, with 29 of 31 records classified under G06Q, meaning most claims sit on commerce and admin data processing rather than pure cryptography.
What the digital product passport patent record shows
Digital product passports bundle three claim types under one label: a data model that describes a product’s origin and composition, an interoperability layer that lets supply-chain parties exchange that data, and a verification mechanism that checks the passport against the physical item. This dataset of 31 patent families filed between 2017 and 2026 captures that convergence at the intersection of business-process patent classes and applied cryptography. Most records sit in G06Q, the business-methods class, with smaller but meaningful overlap in G06F data processing, G06K recognition and presentation, and H04L transmission security — evidence that verification claims are still a minority relative to data-model and traceability-workflow claims.
Filing activity is recent and uneven. A single family appears in 2017, the trend goes quiet at the 2022 midpoint, then climbs to a peak of 9 families in 2024 before the most recent, still-incomplete year. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in any chart understate real filing activity for those years.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 31-family dataset: when applicants filed, and which technical classes their claims fall under.
Filings climbed from a single record in 2017 to a peak of 9 in 2024
The zero-filing midpoint at 2022 followed by a sharp 2023-2024 run suggests the field only recently moved from isolated pilots to active claim-building, likely tracking regulatory signals such as battery passport requirements rather than organic technology maturation.
Business-process classes outweigh pure security classes
G06Q appears in 29 of 31 records, far ahead of G06F (12), G06K (9) and H04L (6). Positioning claims (G01S) and IoT data processing (G16Y) each appear only twice, and labelling (B65C) and textile identification (D02G) appear once each — narrow niches rather than established sub-fields.
Shares are the percentage of the 31 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Digital Product Passport and Traceability with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about digital product passport and traceability and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative recent filing
WO2026145337A1 — Digital product passport architecture, anti-counterfeit verification method and apparatus
A digital product passport architecture in which a business system determines a target identification code and a traceability information request; a product passport system derives a first information fingerprint tied to that code and identifies the target system holding the underlying product data; the target system returns the target product information; and the passport system computes a second information fingerprint and compares it against the first to produce an anti-counterfeit verification result.Filed by Changsha Yingxin Semiconductor Technology Co., Ltd., published 2026-07-09 — the most recent record in this dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CN109146524A | 一种采用区块链技术的农产品溯源信息安全解决方法 | 18 |
| 2 | CN111369261A | 产品溯源方法和系统、产品溯源信息处理方法 | 14 |
| 3 | CN117993923A | 农产品溯源方法及系统 | 10 |
| 4 | CN107688949A | 农产品追溯及品控系统 | 7 |
| 5 | CN111401931A | 一种应用卫星定位技术的农产品溯源系统 | 6 |
| 6 | FR2811454A1 | Crime fighting product traceability system having tag with electronically set digital words and central base … | 5 |
| 7 | CN118446712A | 一种基于大数据挖掘的产品溯源系统 | 3 |
| 8 | CN117875977A | 一种基于区块链的产品溯源系统 | 3 |
| 9 | CN116362774A | 一种水产品的溯源系统及方法 | 2 |
| 10 | CN111160933A | 一种基于GNSS时空信息的肉蔬产品溯源系统及其方法 | 2 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within this searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on subsequent filers, not as a ranking of current commercial importance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 strategy
Three patterns stand out once the filing trend, jurisdiction split and technology composition are read together.
China is the primary filing venue by a wide margin
India (5), EPO (2), France, the UK and Hong Kong (1 each) account for the remainder. A filing strategy built only around US or EPO precedent will miss most of the active claim-building happening in this space.
Claims cluster on business process, not cryptographic novelty
The dominance of G06Q alongside comparatively thin H04L (6) coverage suggests the differentiating claim language in most filings is the data model and workflow, not the underlying cryptographic verification primitive.
Growth is recent and still accelerating
A zero-filing midpoint year followed by a sharp climb to a 2024 peak indicates the field is early in its patenting lifecycle. The most recent year is necessarily undercounted given typical 18-month publication lag.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to digital product passport and traceability, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps are
Recent-year momentum shows several assignees dropping to zero filings in the latest year, which is consistent with a field of small, first-time entrants rather than a small group of repeat filers building deep portfolios.
A long tail of single-filing entrants
Recent-year momentum data shows multiple assignees, including agricultural, logistics and semiconductor firms, falling to zero filings year-on-year — a pattern typical of a field still populated by first-time or opportunistic filers rather than entrenched incumbents.
Agricultural traceability is a recurring theme
Several of the most-cited records concern agricultural product traceability specifically, using blockchain and satellite positioning to verify origin — a narrower application than the broader industrial or battery-passport framing suggested by the search terms.
Semiconductor and identification-tech entrants are newest
The most recent filing in the dataset comes from a semiconductor technology company rather than a traditional supply-chain or retail player, suggesting verification hardware and identity-fingerprinting approaches are a newer entry point into this claim space.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Changsha Yingxin Semiconductor Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| CNC GRP HLDG LTD | 0 | -100% |
| ARVIND SURYBHAN JADHAV | 0 | — |
| Holingol Runhong Information Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Shaanxi Huijuan Supply Chain Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Alibaba Group Holding Limited | 0 | — |
| Suzhou Weigena Information Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Fujian Zhongke Zhongxin Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The filing data points to open questions worth running down with a full-text and claims search rather than trend counts alone.
Map the H04L verification layer specifically
With only 6 of 31 records touching digital transmission security, a targeted search on cryptographic verification claims within product passport contexts would surface whether that space is genuinely open or simply outside this search string.
Explore verification claims in EurekaTrack the 2024-2026 filing surge by applicant type
The jump from zero filings at the 2022 midpoint to a 2024 peak warrants a closer look at whether new entrants are agricultural cooperatives, logistics firms or technology vendors, since that mix shapes where competitive risk actually sits.
Run an assignee-type breakdown in EurekaCheck regulatory alignment for battery and material passports
The search terms reference battery passport regulation directly; a focused query against that regulatory language would clarify how much of the current filing activity is anticipatory compliance work versus general traceability technology.
Search regulatory-aligned filings in EurekaCommon questions about digital product passport patents
In this patent corpus, a digital product passport is typically claimed as a data structure or system that links a product identifier to origin, composition and traceability information, often combined with a verification step that checks the physical product against that stored data. Most of the 31 families in this dataset classify the passport itself as a business-process invention (G06Q) rather than a pure cryptography invention. That means the differentiating claim language usually sits in how the data model and workflow are structured, not in a novel cryptographic primitive.
The assignee base is fragmented rather than concentrated: recent-year momentum data shows several different assignees, spanning agricultural technology, logistics, semiconductor and even industry-association filers, each with just a handful of families and some dropping to zero filings in the latest year. This is a long-tail pattern rather than a small group of dominant incumbents. Anyone assessing freedom to operate should expect to review many small portfolios rather than a handful of blocking players.
China is by far the largest filing venue in this dataset, accounting for 20 of the 31 records, with India a distant second at 5. Europe, France, the UK and Hong Kong each contribute one or two records. A search or clearance strategy focused only on US or European filings would miss the majority of active filing activity in this specific technology combination.
Yes, and the growth is recent. The filing trend shows a single family in 2017, a gap down to zero filings at the 2022 midpoint, and then a climb to a peak of 9 families in 2024. Because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the apparent decline in the most recent year is very likely an artefact of that lag rather than a real slowdown, and true 2025-2026 filing volumes will only become visible in later data pulls.
The technology composition data points to several thinner branches relative to the dominant G06Q business-process cluster: cryptographic verification methods classified under H04L appear in only 6 of 31 records, and niche applications such as textile identification, IoT-linked passport updates and satellite-position-linked provenance verification each appear in only one or two records. These are candidate areas for a first-mover claim, though a full-text search beyond this specific search string would be needed to confirm they are genuinely uncrowded rather than simply outside the query terms used here.
Research Digital Product Passport and Traceability in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole digital product passport and traceability 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.