Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/distributed-ledger-technology-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Distributed Ledger TechnologyDistributed Ledger Technology Patents: Who Leads and Where Filing Is Heading
- 33.2% of all 12,315 records sit with just five companies — concentration is real, but the remaining two-thirds is a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants.
- Filings fell 38% from 2021 to 2024 (1,591 to 983), after peaking at 2,378 in 2019 — the pullback predates the still-filling-in 2025-2026 window.
- H04L and G06F dominate the claim space at 55.0% and 47.6% of records respectively, while vehicle-adjacent classes like B60L and B60W sit under 3% each.
12.3K
Published Records
33%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-38%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (1,591 records) with 2024 (983) — 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 12,315 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What the distributed ledger technology patent record shows
The scope covers 12,315 published records filed against distributed ledger, blockchain-ledger or decentralized-ledger claims paired with compute infrastructure terms such as virtual machines, workload scheduling or transaction processing. That pairing pulls in filings from financial infrastructure players, cloud and enterprise software vendors, and automotive OEMs pursuing vehicle-record and telematics applications built on ledger primitives. The result is a field that reads less like a single technology and more like an infrastructure layer being claimed from several directions at once.
Filing activity peaked in 2019 and has since receded, though publication lag of roughly 18 months means the most recent years understate true filing volume. The concentration figures below describe a market where a handful of large filers hold a meaningful share of the record, but the majority of activity still comes from entities appearing only once or twice in the ranking.
Filing volume and technology composition, 2017-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Distributed Ledger Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Data
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views matter here: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records split across IPC subclasses. Both are drawn directly from the 12,315 records in scope.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings rose from 356 in 2017 to a peak of 2,378 in 2019, then declined to 983 by 2024 — a 38% drop from the 2021 level of 1,591. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in due to publication lag and should not be read as a continuation of decline.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
H04L (digital information transmission) and G06F (electric digital data processing) each cover roughly half of all records, with G06Q (business/commerce data processing) close behind at 41.6%. Wireless, AI-model, and vehicle-control classes are present but comparatively thin, each under 6% of records — these are the classes worth checking for white space rather than dense prior art.
Shares are the percentage of the 12,315 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Distributed Ledger Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Distributed Ledger Technology Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about distributed ledger technology patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative and most-cited filings
Representative recent filing
Systems and Methods for Tokenizing Entities with Decentralized Storage and Distributed Ledger Technology Integration
VANNADIUM, INC.
A processing system operating in a distributed ledger technology network receives an input dataset covering asset attributes, identity information or event metadata, encrypts it, partitions the encrypted data into multiple segments distributed across decentralized storage nodes, and generates a cryptographic token linked to the dataset with metadata referencing the encrypted segments and a data provenance identifier.Filed by Vannadium, Inc., published 2025-09-18 — illustrates the current claim style: tokenization tied directly to segmented decentralized storage rather than a single ledger write.
Most-cited records in the corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20170232300A1 | Smart device | 1,050 |
| 2 | US20200284883A1 | Component for a lidar sensor system, lidar sensor system, lidar sensor device, method for a lidar sensor syst… | 1,015 |
| 3 | US20180018723A1 | Distributed ledger platform for vehicle records | 684 |
| 4 | US20140344015A1 | Systems and methods enabling consumers to control and monetize their personal data | 678 |
| 5 | US20180005186A1 | System and method for forming, storing, managing, and executing contracts | 629 |
| 6 | US20180307859A1 | Systems and methods for enforcing centralized privacy controls in de-centralized systems | 626 |
| 7 | US20180117446A1 | Smart device | 583 |
| 8 | US20180075527A1 | Credit score platform | 573 |
| 9 | US20200005284A1 | Systems and Methods for Implementing Blockchain-Based Content Engagement Platforms Utilizing Media Wallets | 525 |
| 10 | US20170085545A1 | Smart Rules and Social Aggregating, Fractionally Efficient Transfer Guidance, Conditional Triggered Transacti… | 503 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations within this corpus — read them as a signal of influence on subsequent filings, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Distributed Ledger Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns recur across the dataset: concentration at the top, a technology mix skewed toward transmission and general-purpose data processing, and a filing trend that has genuinely cooled since 2019 without yet reversing.
Concentration
33.2% of 12,315 records
held by top 5 filers
The top of the field is dense, the rest is open
The five leading assignees combined account for 33.2% of all records in scope, and the top ten hold 41.3%. That leaves a majority of filings distributed across a long tail of entities appearing only a handful of times each — a pattern typical of an infrastructure technology still being claimed from multiple industries rather than owned by one.
Based on the 100-company assignee ranking returned for this dataset.
Filing momentum
-38% (2021→2024)
filings fell over that span
Volume has cooled since the 2019 peak
Filings peaked at 2,378 in 2019 and had fallen to 983 by 2024, a 38% decline from the 2021 level of 1,591. That is a real pullback in claim activity, not an artifact of publication lag, since it is measured entirely within years that have already cleared the roughly 18-month publication window.
2025-2026 figures are still filling in and are excluded from this comparison.
Technology mix
55.0% carry H04L
of all 12,315 records
Transmission and general compute classes dominate claims
H04L and G06F between them touch roughly half of all records, with G06Q close behind — meaning most claims are being written around data transmission, general digital processing, and commerce/admin logic rather than around any single ledger-specific mechanism. Vehicle-control classes B60L and B60W stay under 3% each, a much thinner claim layer relative to the core.
Class shares sum above 100% because records can carry multiple IPC classes.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to distributed ledger technology patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Co-filing patterns
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Alibaba Group Holding Limited | Advanced New Technologies Co., Ltd. | 57 |
| Toyota Motor North America, Inc. | Toyota Connected North America, Inc. | 53 |
| International Business Machines Corporation | IBM UNITED KINGDOM LTD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT | 47 |
| International Business Machines Corporation | IBM (China) Co., Ltd. | 46 |
| Visa International Service Association | Yale University | 13 |
| International Business Machines Corporation | IBM ISRAEL SCI & TECH LTD | 7 |
| Toyota Motor North America, Inc. | Toyota Motor Corporation | 7 |
| International Business Machines Corporation | IBM DEUTSCHLAND GMBH | 5 |
Co-assignee pairs are rare in this dataset — only 8 identified — and the strongest pairings link a parent and its affiliate rather than independent companies, suggesting most patenting here happens within a single corporate group rather than through joint ventures.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Distributed Ledger Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders span financial infrastructure, cloud platforms, storage vendors and automotive OEMs — a mix that reflects the search terms pulling in both ledger-native filers and infrastructure vendors bolting ledger claims onto existing compute patents.
Financial infrastructure
Top 5 = 33.2%
of 12,315 records
Payments and enterprise software lead by volume
Filers built around payments processing and enterprise licensing appear consistently near the top of the ranking, reflecting ledger claims layered onto transaction-processing and business-process patents already core to those businesses.
Ranking covers 100 companies, counted in records.
Automotive
B60L 2.1%, B60W 2.0%
of records
Vehicle-record filers are present but thin on volume
Automotive OEMs show up in the co-assignee pairs and the ranking, pursuing ledger-based vehicle-record and telematics claims, but their underlying IPC classes remain a small share of the overall corpus — a narrower, more defensible niche than the transmission and general-compute core.
See co-assignee pairs for parent/affiliate filing patterns.
Momentum
+100% YoY
for one leading filer
Momentum is mixed even among leaders
Recent-year movement among named leaders ranges from a near-total pullback to one filer more than doubling its latest-year count from a small base — a sign that individual filing strategy, not sector-wide demand, is driving year-to-year swings right now.
Latest-year figures are partial due to publication lag.
Recent filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Pure Storage, Inc. | 4 | -86% |
| International Business Machines Corporation | 2 | +100% |
| Toyota Motor North America, Inc. | 1 | -97% |
| Visa International Service Association | 1 | -50% |
| Bank of America Corporation | 1 | -89% |
| Alibaba Group Holding Limited | 0 | — |
| Advanced New Technologies Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | 0 | -100% |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Distributed Ledger Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this next
The dataset points to a field with a dense core and a thinner periphery. Two directions make sense depending on what a team needs to decide.
Check freedom-to-operate in the dense core
H04L and G06F claims cover roughly half of all records each, so any new filing touching general ledger transmission or data processing should expect to search against a crowded field before drafting.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in EurekaScope the thinner branches before the field fills in
Vehicle-control, AI-model and time/attendance overlaps with ledger claims each sit under 6% of records — worth a closer look while claim space there is still comparatively open.
Explore white space in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Distributed Ledger Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about distributed ledger technology patents
The dataset's ranked leaders come from financial infrastructure, enterprise software, storage and automotive sectors, with the top five filers combined holding 33.2% of all 12,315 records in scope and the top ten holding 41.3%. That leaves a majority of records distributed across a long tail of filers who appear only a handful of times each. This mix reflects how many industries are attaching ledger claims to existing compute and transaction-processing patent portfolios rather than one company owning the space outright.
No — filing peaked at 2,378 records in 2019 and had fallen to 983 by 2024, a 38% decline from the 2021 level of 1,591. That decline is measured using years that have already cleared the roughly 18-month publication lag, so it reflects genuine filing behaviour rather than an artifact of recent data still filling in. Figures from 2025 onward should be read cautiously since they are still incomplete.
Digital information transmission (H04L) and general electric digital data processing (G06F) are the two largest classes, covering 55.0% and 47.6% of all 12,315 records respectively, with business and commerce data processing (G06Q) close behind at 41.6%. Wireless networks, AI-model computing, vehicle propulsion and vehicle control classes are all present but each covers under 6% of records. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100%, which is expected.
The thinner IPC classes — time/attendance checking devices, hybrid vehicle control, and AI-model overlaps with ledger validation — each cover only a few percent of the 12,315 records, compared to roughly half for the core transmission and data-processing classes. That gap suggests claim space in ledger-based vehicle coordination, attendance/checking systems and AI-assisted ledger validation is comparatively open. It is worth verifying with a fresh search before drafting, since thin classes can still contain a small number of blocking claims.
Moderately concentrated at the top but long-tailed overall: the five leading assignees hold 33.2% of the 12,315 records in scope, and the ten leading assignees hold 41.3%. Co-assignee filing is rare, with only 8 identified pairs, and the strongest of those link a parent company to its own affiliate rather than independent joint ventures. That pattern points to most patenting happening inside single corporate groups rather than through cross-company collaboration.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Distributed Ledger Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Distributed Ledger Technology Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole distributed ledger technology 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.