Distributed Database Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing peaked in 2021 at 88 families and has declined since, with the partial 2026 count sitting at just 2 — a maturing claim landscape rather than a growing one.
- The United States dominates filing venues with 331 families filed there against 67 at the EPO and 63 in China, so US prior art is the first place to search before filing.
- Momentum has stalled across the leading assignees several of the most active filers, including Amazon and MongoDB, show 0 families in the latest year and a -100% year-on-year change.
Filing growth compares 2021 (88 records) with 2024 (39) — 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 662 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 662 patent families filed against a search combining distributed database, distributed transaction and NewSQL terminology with claim language on consensus protocols, sharding, consistency models, cross-region latency and failover, restricted to the core data-processing and network-transmission IPC classes. The coverage window runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, though publication lag of roughly 18 months means the last one to two years understate actual filing activity.
The technology sits almost entirely inside G06F (electric digital data processing), with H04L (digital transmission) a distant second and small overlaps into AI-assisted query processing, video delivery and wireless networking — evidence that distributed database claims are still framed as core data infrastructure rather than as an application layer feature.
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 662 families: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how the claims are distributed across IPC subclasses.
Filings rose to a 2021 peak, then declined
Filings climbed from 42 in 2017 to a peak of 88 in 2021, then eased back toward the 2022 midpoint of 64 and continued down toward the partial 2026 figure. That shape reads as a technology whose core claim space filled up through the late 2010s and early 2020s rather than one still in an early filing surge.
G06F dominates; H04L and G06Q trail
653 of 662 records touch G06F, confirming this is fundamentally a data-processing patent set. H04L appears in 144 records, reflecting the network-transmission side of cross-region replication and failover; G06Q, G06N, H04N, H02H, H04W and B25J each appear in single digits to low double digits, marking business-logic, AI-assisted, video, protective-circuit, wireless and robotics overlaps as minor rather than structural.
Shares are the percentage of the 662 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Distributed Database Systems with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about distributed database systems and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records and a representative claim
US11222006B2 — Methods and apparatus for a distributed database that enables deletion of events
The apparatus determines an order for each event in a set of events using different configurations of an event consensus protocol, tied to different configurations of the compute devices implementing the distributed database, then derives a current state of the database instance from that ordering and produces a signed state.Assignee: Hedera Hashgraph, LLC. Filed and granted within the window covered by this landscape.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20210182423A1 | Systems, methods, and apparatuses for storing PII information via a metadata driven blockchain using distribu… | 241 |
| 2 | US20170286518A1 | Systems and methods for managing distributed database deployments | 215 |
| 3 | US20170344618A1 | Systems and methods for managing distributed database deployments | 189 |
| 4 | US20170286516A1 | Systems and methods for managing distributed database deployments | 151 |
| 5 | US20170270176A1 | System and method for determining consensus within a distributed database | 131 |
| 6 | WO2022240906A1 | Systems, methods, kits, and apparatuses for edge-distributed storage and querying in value chain networks | 125 |
| 7 | US20170286517A1 | Systems and methods for managing distributed database deployments | 107 |
| 8 | US20140164831A1 | Method and apparatus for maintaining replica sets | 103 |
| 9 | US20160371156A1 | System and method for facilitating replication in a distributed database | 100 |
| 10 | US20200211011A1 | Scalable Distributed Ledger System | 87 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations within the searched corpus; treat this table as a signal of influence, not of current technical importance.
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
Three patterns worth acting on before drafting new claims in this space.
The core claim space is filling up, not opening
Filings rose steadily from 42 in 2017 to 88 in 2021, then declined through the 2022 midpoint of 64 down to a partial count of 2 in 2026. Even allowing for publication lag understating the last two years, the trajectory is downward, not flat.
US filings dominate the prior art
Of 662 families, exactly half sit in US filings, with Europe and China each carrying under a tenth of that volume and WIPO/PCT, Australia and Hong Kong smaller still. A freedom-to-operate search that skips US prior art misses the majority of this landscape.
Momentum has stalled at the top
Amazon and MongoDB both show 0 families in the latest year with a -100% year-on-year change, and other leading assignees such as Hedera Hashgraph and Microsoft also register 0 in the latest year. This is consistent with the overall post-2021 decline rather than any single company retreating.
Collaboration is rare and concentrated
Only three co-assignee pairs appear across the whole corpus. The strongest, Hedera Hashgraph with Swirlds, accounts for 22 shared families; the other two pairs, both involving Huawei, each show a single shared filing.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to distributed database systems, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
Filing activity concentrates among a small set of established assignees, with a long tail of single-filing entrants behind them.
A consensus-protocol specialist pair
Hedera Hashgraph and Swirlds together hold the strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset by a wide margin, concentrated on consensus-protocol claims for distributed ledgers and databases.
Cloud-native leaders have gone quiet
Amazon and MongoDB, both major commercial distributed database vendors, show zero families in the latest year against a full stop in year-on-year growth. Given publication lag, this may reflect filings still working through the pipeline rather than a genuine pullback.
US remains the primary battleground
Half of all 662 families were filed in the United States, making US file histories the essential starting point for any clearance search or licensing negotiation in this space.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Swirlds, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Hedera Hashgraph, LLC | 0 | — |
| Amazon Technologies, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| MONGODB INC | 0 | -100% |
| Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | 0 | — |
| Nobo Corporation | 0 | — |
| Oracle International Corporation | 0 | — |
| Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The landscape data points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is clearance, licensing or new filing strategy.
Run a clearance search before drafting new claims
With 653 of 662 records sitting in G06F and half of all filings in the US, any new consensus, sharding or failover claim should be checked against that concentrated prior art first.
Explore Patsnap EurekaTrack the leading assignees into the next filing cycle
Several top filers show zero activity in the latest year, which publication lag may be masking; revisiting this in twelve months will show whether the 2021 peak was a permanent ceiling or a temporary lull.
Explore Patsnap EurekaProbe the under-claimed branches directly
Cross-region failover, AI-assisted query routing and edge-node consistency tuning show thinner density than core sharding claims, making them candidates for a first-mover filing.
Explore Patsnap EurekaCommon questions about distributed database patents
Filing in this corpus is led by a mix of infrastructure vendors and distributed-ledger specialists, including Amazon, MongoDB, Microsoft, Hedera Hashgraph and Huawei. Hedera Hashgraph and its affiliate Swirlds also form the strongest co-assignee pairing in the dataset, sharing 22 families built around consensus-protocol claims. No single assignee dominates the full 662-family set, and a long tail of smaller filers sits behind the leaders.
No. Filings rose from 42 in 2017 to a peak of 88 in 2021, then declined through 64 at the 2022 midpoint down to a partial count of 2 in the most recent year. Publication lag of around 18 months means the last one to two years are understated, but the multi-year trend is clearly downward from the 2021 peak rather than flat or rising.
Start with the United States, which accounts for 331 of the 662 families in this corpus — half the total. Europe (EPO) and China follow with 67 and 63 families respectively, and WIPO/PCT, Australia and Hong Kong hold smaller volumes. A clearance search that omits US filings will miss the majority of relevant prior art in this field.
US11222006B2, assigned to Hedera Hashgraph, claims an apparatus that determines event ordering in a distributed database using different configurations of an event consensus protocol, then derives a current, signed database state from that ordering. It ties the ordering logic to specific configurations of the compute devices implementing the database. Anyone building an alternative consensus mechanism for event ordering in a distributed database should review this filing's claim scope directly rather than relying on the abstract alone.
Based on the IPC composition, claim density thins out away from the core G06F sharding and consensus territory: cross-region latency-aware failover, AI-assisted query routing (the G06N overlap of just 15 records), consistency-model tuning for edge nodes, and wireless-network failover coordination all show comparatively light filing activity. These are not guarantees of open white space, but the low record counts relative to the 653-record G06F core suggest less-crowded claim territory worth investigating before assuming it is blocked.
Research Distributed Database Systems in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole distributed database systems 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.