Data to 2026-07-31

Low precision training format patents: mapping block floating point, shared exponent and loss scaling claims

Concentrated at the top. The five leading assignees hold 41.8% of all 1,095 records in scope, and the top ten hold 59.9% — this is a field with a short list of entrenched filers, not a wide-open race. Filings rose to a peak of 115 in 2019, then declined across complete-year data to 35 in 2024, a 49% drop from 2021's 69 filings. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under the usual publication lag and should not be read as a continued decline.

Filing trend, 2017–2026
Complete Incomplete
Filing trend, 2017–202603060901203220172018115201920202021202220232024202542026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.
1,095
Published Records
42%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-49%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Top filers · published records
  1. 1MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC171
  2. 2APPLE INC89
  3. 3INTEL CORP82
  4. 4TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)69
  5. 5NVIDIA CORP47
Published by Patsnap Research·

See the full low precision training formats analysis in Eureka

  • The complete ranking, not just the top five
  • Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
  • The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Read more about this analysis in Eureka
FAQ

Common questions on low precision training patents

What counts as a low precision training format in patent terms?+

In this dataset it means claims combining a reduced-precision numerical representation — typically block floating point or shared exponent grouping — with the supporting numerical controls that keep training stable, such as loss scaling, accumulation precision, rounding mode selection or dynamic range management. A filing that only claims a generic quantization scheme without these specific mechanisms usually falls outside this scope. The search string behind this landscape requires both a format term and a numerical-control term to appear together, which is why the corpus centres on training-stability techniques rather than general model compression.

Who are the leading patent filers in low precision training formats?+

The assignee ranking behind this landscape covers 100 companies, with one clear leader holding 171 records — more than three times the fifth-place count of 47. The top five assignees combined account for 41.8% of all 1,095 records in scope, and the top ten account for 59.9%. Beyond that group, filing activity thins into a long tail of companies with single-digit record counts, so competitive attention should focus on the leading names and watch for new entrants rather than assuming an even spread.

Is patent filing in this space still growing?+

Filing peaked in 2019 at 115 records and has declined since across complete-year data, with 2021's 69 filings dropping to 35 by 2024 — a 49% fall over that span. Because publication lags actual filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset are still incomplete and will rise as more records publish, so it is too early to call the current trajectory a continued decline. The safest reading is that filing has cooled from its 2019 peak but the last one to two years remain an open question.

Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.

Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.

Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Low Precision Training Formats covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.