Ontology Alignment Patents: Who Leads & Where the Gaps Are 2026
Filing growth compares 2021 (72 records) with 2024 (46) — 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 1,081 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Ontology alignment and schema matching sit at the plumbing layer of knowledge graph systems: the methods that let one data schema, taxonomy or graph ontology be mapped onto another so queries, search and downstream AI models can treat heterogeneous sources as one. This landscape covers 1,081 patent families published between 2015 and the 2026-07-31 cut-off, drawn from filings that name ontology alignment, ontology matching or schema alignment directly, or pair ontology-matching language with knowledge graph, database, data processing or information retrieval claims.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate real filing activity; 2024 is the last year that can be read as complete. The picture below uses patent families as the counting unit throughout, which is the fairer basis for comparing assignees that file aggressively across jurisdictions against those that file once.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,081 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim volume.
A decade of uneven growth, not a straight climb
Annual filings rose from 43 in 2017 to a peak of 148 in 2025, but the path was not monotonic: 2021 filings (72) fell to 46 by 2024, a -36% move over that three-year span. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as provisional given the publication lag rather than as evidence of a fresh acceleration.
Claim volume sits overwhelmingly in general data processing
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 79.6% of the 1,081 records, with G06N (AI-based computing) on 30.2% and G06Q (business/commerce data processing) on 17.1%. Healthcare informatics (G16H, 7.9%) and bioinformatics (G16B, 4.3%) are the largest domain-specific applications, while image/video recognition (G06V, 1.9%) remains a minor share — each record can carry several classes, so these figures do not sum to 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,081 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Knowledge Graphs & Graph Computing: Ontology Alignment Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about knowledge graphs & graph computing: ontology alignment patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative claim and the most-cited prior art
US11907182B2 — Schema-based data retrieval from knowledge graphs (SAP SE, 2024-02-20)
A computer-implemented method includes receiving a request of data records for a data schema, obtaining a schema alignment which maps the data schema to a subset of an ontology of a knowledge graph, generating at least one query based on the subset of the ontology of the knowledge graph, obtaining a list of data records by executing the at least one query on the knowledge graph to obtain a list of data records, and persisting the list of data records to the data schema.The claim scope is narrow and mechanical: it covers the specific sequence of obtaining a schema alignment, deriving a query from it, and executing that query against a knowledge graph — not schema alignment or ontology mapping as a general concept.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20090164441A1 | Method and apparatus for searching using an active ontology | 724 |
| 2 | US20160255139A1 | Structured updated status, requests, user data & programming based presenting & accessing of connections or c… | 707 |
| 3 | US20030172368A1 | System and method for autonomously generating heterogeneous data source interoperability bridges based on sem… | 616 |
| 4 | US20110225293A1 | System and method for service based social network | 479 |
| 5 | US20120158633A1 | Knowledge graph based search system | 425 |
| 6 | US7877421B2 | Method and system for mapping enterprise data assets to a semantic information model | 369 |
| 7 | US20070226796A1 | Tactical and strategic attack detection and prediction | 339 |
| 8 | US20180232443A1 | Intelligent matching system with ontology-aided relation extraction | 334 |
| 9 | US20150269139A1 | Automatic Evaluation and Improvement of Ontologies for Natural Language Processing Tasks | 309 |
| 10 | US20160255082A1 | Identifying & storing followers, following users, viewers, users and connections for user | 282 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus; read them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial 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 strategy
Four read-outs from the ranking, the trend and the class distribution, aimed at where to file, who to watch, and where the claim space is still open.
No single company controls this space
The leading assignee holds 57 families out of 1,081, and the top 5 combined reach only 12.5% of all records in scope. That leaves the large majority of filings distributed across a long tail of entrants filing once or a handful of times — a fragmented landscape rather than one dominated by a handful of blocking portfolios.
Filing activity has cooled from its 2021 level
Annual filings dropped from 72 in 2021 to 46 in 2024, a -36% move over that span, even as the overall multi-year trend later reached a peak of 148 in 2025. The 2025-2026 uptick should be read cautiously given the roughly 18-month publication lag rather than treated as a confirmed reversal.
Ontology alignment is claimed as general data processing, not as a niche class
Nearly four in five records sit in G06F (electric digital data processing), with AI-based computing (G06N) present on 30.2% and business data processing (G06Q) on 17.1%. Domain applications in healthcare (G16H, 7.9%) and bioinformatics (G16B, 4.3%) are present but secondary, suggesting the core technique is still filed generically rather than tied to a single vertical.
China is now the largest single filing venue
China receives 421 of the filings in scope, ahead of the United States at 288, the WIPO PCT route at 87, India at 69, the EPO at 63 and South Korea at 41. Freedom-to-operate and prior-art searching for new filings in this space should treat Chinese-language prior art as a first-order concern, not a secondary check.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to knowledge graphs & graph computing: ontology alignment patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a fragmented but fast-growing filing base with claim scope concentrated in general data processing classes. The next steps depend on whether the goal is defensive clearance, competitive tracking or identifying open claim territory.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on a specific alignment technique
With claim volume this concentrated in G06F and no dominant blocking assignee, a targeted search against the specific alignment mechanism — not the broad category — is the efficient way to clear a filing.
Search this space in EurekaTrack the long tail of single-filing entrants
Most of the 1,081 families sit outside the top 5 assignees; watching new entrants by receiving office, especially China, surfaces competitive moves before they show up in citation data.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaMap claim scope against adjacent verticals
Healthcare and bioinformatics applications remain a small share of filings relative to the generic data-processing base, which is where under-claimed combinations are most likely to sit.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
This dataset identifies 1,081 patent families in scope for ontology alignment, ontology matching and schema alignment claims published between 2015 and the 2026-07-31 cut-off. Annual filings rose from 43 in 2017 to a peak of 148 in 2025, though 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. 2024, at 46 filings, is the most recent year that can be read as complete, and it sits well below the 72 filings recorded in 2021.
The ranking covers 100 companies, with the leading assignee holding 57 of the 1,081 families in scope. Concentration at the top is modest: the top 5 assignees combined account for just 12.5% of all records, and the top 10 for 18.8%, meaning the majority of filings come from a long tail of companies filing only a handful of times each. This points to an open competitive field rather than one controlled by a small number of dominant portfolios.
The large majority of filings, 79.6% of the 1,081 records, carry a G06F classification for electric digital data processing, reflecting that ontology alignment is mostly claimed as general-purpose data processing rather than a dedicated technique class. AI-based computing (G06N) appears on 30.2% of records and business/commerce data processing (G06Q) on 17.1%. Domain-specific classes such as healthcare informatics (G16H, 7.9%) and bioinformatics (G16B, 4.3%) are present but represent a smaller share of the total, since any one record can carry several IPC classes.
China is the leading receiving office with 421 filings in this dataset, ahead of the United States at 288 and the WIPO PCT route at 87. India (69), the European Patent Office (63) and South Korea (41) follow behind. For companies assessing filing strategy or clearance risk, this distribution means Chinese-language prior art and examination practice deserve first-order attention rather than being treated as a secondary market.
US11907182B2, assigned to SAP SE and issued 2024-02-20, claims a specific method: receiving a request against a data schema, obtaining a schema alignment mapping that schema to a subset of a knowledge graph ontology, generating a query from that subset, executing it against the knowledge graph, and persisting the resulting records to the schema. It does not claim schema alignment or ontology mapping in general terms. A new filing that uses a different sequence — for instance generating the query before finalizing the schema alignment, or skipping the persistence step — would sit outside this specific claim scope, though a full clearance search should still check adjacent SAP filings and the wider corpus of 1,081 records.
Research Knowledge Graphs & Graph Computing: Ontology Alignment Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole knowledge graphs & graph computing: ontology alignment 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.