Open-Source Infrastructure Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- 29.6% sits with five companies. The top five assignees combined account for 1,298 of the 4,381 records in scope — a concentrated head with a long tail behind it.
- Filing peaked in 2021, then eased. Activity ran from 299 records in 2017 to a high of 469 in 2021, then declined 28% to 336 by 2024, the last complete filing year.
- One IPC class dominates the claim space. G06F covers 88.1% of all records, while adjacent classes like G16H healthcare informatics sit at just 0.4% — a visible gap for new entrants.
Filing growth compares 2021 (469 records) with 2024 (336) — 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 4,381 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent filings touching source code repositories, deployment pipelines and service orchestration — the infrastructure layer that sits beneath open-source development tooling rather than the open-source licensing model itself. Records span 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, drawing on 4,381 published documents held across 100 ranked assignees.
The claims here run from repository check-in controls and CI/CD orchestration through to API-interface management, with a growing overlay of AI-assisted code tooling. Filing is dominated by enterprise software vendors rather than open-source foundations, which shapes where the defensible claim space actually sits.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 4,381-record corpus: filing activity by year, and the IPC subclasses those records fall into.
A 2021 peak, then a pull-back
Filings rose from 299 in 2017 to a peak of 469 in 2021, then fell 28% to 336 by 2024 — the most recent year the data can be read as complete, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months and 2025-2026 figures will still fill in.
G06F dominates; adjacent classes are thin
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears in 88.1% of records, with H04L (digital information transmission) at 21.6% and G06N (AI-based computing) at 15.1% a distant second and third. Because records carry multiple classes, these shares add to more than 100% of the 4,381 records in scope — but the drop-off after G06F is still the clearest signal of where claim density lives.
Shares are the percentage of the 4,381 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Open-Source Software Infrastructure Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about open-source software infrastructure patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
US20170060575A1 — Controlling repetitive check-in of intermediate versions of source code
A repository control computer checks out source code from a source code repository to a local memory of a developer's computer responsive to a developer-initiated check-out message, then repetitively checks in intermediate versions of that source code responsive to a rule-defined condition, before checking in a final version on a developer-initiated check-in message.Filed by CA, INC., dated 2017-03-02.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6601233B1 | Business components framework | 1,859 |
| 2 | US7100195B1 | Managing user information on an e-commerce system | 1,647 |
| 3 | US20030172145A1 | System and method for designing, developing and implementing internet service provider architectures | 1,335 |
| 4 | US6523027B1 | Interfacing servers in a Java based e-commerce architecture | 1,206 |
| 5 | US6718535B1 | Activity framework design in an e-commerce based environment for providing supporting services to a model vie… | 1,039 |
| 6 | US20130152047A1 | System for distributed software quality improvement | 963 |
| 7 | US6633878B1 | Initializing an ecommerce database framework | 818 |
| 8 | US6704873B1 | Secure gateway interconnection in an e-commerce based environment | 785 |
| 9 | US6609128B1 | Codes table framework design in an E-commerce architecture | 710 |
| 10 | US6701514B1 | System, method, and article of manufacture for test maintenance in an automated scripting framework | 704 |
Citation counts reflect age as much as importance — older e-commerce architecture filings from the early 2000s lead the table simply because they've had longer to accumulate citations within this searched set.
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 data means for filing strategy
Three patterns in this corpus matter more than the raw counts.
The head is concentrated, the tail is long
Five companies hold 1,298 of 4,381 records (29.6%), and the top 10 combined reach 38.8%. The leader alone holds 603 records — well ahead of fifth place at 109 — meaning most of the ranked field holds a modest, defensible slice rather than a dominant one.
Post-peak pull-back, not collapse
Filing activity fell from 469 records in 2021 to 336 in 2024, a 28% decline over three years. Several leading assignees show sharp year-over-year drops in the latest tracked year, but that figure is still filling in given publication lag, so it reads as a pause rather than a verdict.
Claim space is stacked in one class
G06F carries 88.1% of all 4,381 records, dwarfing H04L (21.6%) and G06N (15.1%). Classes further out — G05B control systems at 0.7% and G16H healthcare informatics at 0.4% — show where infrastructure claims have barely been tested against domain-specific deployment contexts.
Joint filing is rare and mostly internal
Only 8 co-assignee pairs appear in the corpus, the strongest being Atlassian's own corporate pairing at 58 shared records. Cross-company co-filing is essentially absent, which suggests most parties here are protecting internally developed tooling rather than jointly commercialised platforms.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to open-source software infrastructure patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the openings are
The ranked assignee list runs 100 companies deep, counted by records. It is not a top-50 or top-100 shortlist — it is the whole ranking the data endpoint returns, and it is dominated by large enterprise software and cloud vendors rather than open-source foundations.
A single leader well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 603 records, more than five times fifth place at 109. That gap is unusual for this kind of infrastructure category and points to a long-running, deliberate filing programme rather than opportunistic patenting.
The drop-off after the top 10 is steep
Tenth place holds 60 records against a leader at 603 — a tenfold spread inside the top 10 alone. Beyond that point the ranking thins quickly into single- and double-digit filers, which is where freedom-to-operate risk is lowest.
Even the largest filers slowed sharply
Several of the largest assignees show year-over-year declines between -91% and -100% in the latest tracked year. Given publication lag this likely overstates any real slowdown, but it does mean recent competitive signal from filing volume alone should be read cautiously.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | 2 | -91% |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | 0 | -100% |
| Amazon Technologies, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC | 0 | -100% |
| ATLASSIAN PTY LTD | 0 | -100% |
| Bank of America Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| SAP SE | 0 | -100% |
| Palantir Technologies Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The landscape numbers point to specific next steps depending on what you're deciding.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader
With 603 records concentrated in one assignee, any repository-control or check-in/check-out claim should be screened against that portfolio specifically before drafting.
Run an FTO screen in EurekaScope claims toward under-claimed classes
G16H and G05B sit under 1% of records each — domain-specific deployment and control-system integration claims face far less prior art there than in the crowded G06F core.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack momentum, not just headcount
Year-over-year filing swings among the largest assignees are steep but likely distorted by publication lag; re-check this trend once 2025-2026 data matures.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee leads clearly with 603 of the 4,381 records in scope, more than five times the fifth-ranked company's 109. The top five combined hold 29.6% of all records, and the top ten hold 38.8%, so while there is a concentrated head, the majority of filing activity is spread across a long tail of smaller filers. The ranked list covers 100 companies total, not just the largest names, so smaller players with focused portfolios are also visible in the data.
Filing rose from 299 records in 2017 to a peak of 469 in 2021, then declined 28% to 336 by 2024, which is the most recent year that can be treated as complete. Publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset will understate real activity and should not yet be read as a continued decline. The honest read is a post-peak pull-back through 2024, not a confirmed long-term slowdown.
It claims a repository control computer that checks source code out to a developer's local machine, then repetitively checks in intermediate versions whenever a rule-defined condition is met, before a final check-in on the developer's explicit command. The key mechanism is the automated, rule-triggered intermediate check-in step rather than manual version control. Anyone building automated commit or snapshot behaviour into a source-code-repository tool should read the claim scope closely rather than assuming manual check-in/check-out prior art clears it.
IPC composition shows G06F covering 88.1% of the 4,381 records, while classes like G16H (healthcare informatics) and G05B (control and regulating systems) sit at 0.4% and 0.7% respectively. That gap suggests infrastructure claims tailored to healthcare deployment contexts or control-system integration face far less prior art density than generic repository or pipeline claims. Wireless-network service orchestration (H04W, 2.0%) is a similar, if slightly less open, opening.
A single leader holding 603 of 4,381 records against a tenth-place holder of only 60 is a steep concentration curve, though the top ten together still only reach 38.8% of all records. That leaves roughly 61% of filing activity spread across the remaining ranked assignees and unranked filers, which is a meaningfully long tail. Co-assignee filing is also rare — only 8 pairs were identified, and the strongest is an internal corporate pairing rather than cross-company collaboration.
Research Open-Source Software Infrastructure Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole open-source software infrastructure 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.