https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/privacy-attacks-on-models-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Privacy-Preserving Computation
Privacy Attacks on Models: Patents Behind Membership Inference, Model Inversion and Extraction Defenses
  • Fragmented ownership. 68 companies hold the 83 records in scope, and the leader controls only 6 of them — there is no dominant filer to design around.
  • Filings accelerated sharply through 2024. annual filings rose from 4 in 2021 to 17 in 2024, a 325% increase, before publication lag makes 2025-2026 look artificially quiet.
  • Claims cluster in general computing, not vision or speech. G06F and G06N cover the majority of records, while G10L, G16H, G06K and G06V each sit under 5% — audio, healthcare and image-recognition attack claims remain thin.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
83
Published Records
31%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+325%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (4 records) with 2024 (17) — 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 83 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview

What this landscape covers

Privacy attacks on models — membership inference, model inversion and training data extraction — sit at the intersection of AI security and data protection law. This landscape tracks patent filings that combine one of those attack techniques with an evaluation or defense mechanism: memorization measurement, attack success rate scoring, canary insertion, or a formal threat model and auditing procedure. That combination is deliberate — it captures filings that go beyond describing an attack and instead claim a way to measure or defend against one.

The scope spans 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, with 83 published records assigned to 68 distinct companies. Filing activity was negligible before 2021 and rose steeply thereafter, tracking the broader shift toward auditing generative and predictive models before deployment.

Filing activity, 2015-2026
  1. 1TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)6
  2. 2BEEKEEPERAI INC5
  3. 3SAP SE5
  4. 4ORACLE INT CORP5
  5. 5TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD5
  6. 6GOOGLE LLC4
  7. 7ROYAL BANK OF CANADA3
  8. 8STRONG FORCE TX PORTFOLIO 2018 LLC3
  9. 9UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA2
  10. 10PRIVACY ANALYTICS2
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Privacy Attacks on Models covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 83 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims fall under.

Annual filings, 2017-2026

Filings held near zero through 2017 and only became a measurable signal from 2021, when 4 records were filed. That figure rose to 17 by 2024 — a 325% increase — before the count reached a peak of 25 in 2025. Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as a slowdown.

Annual filings, 2017-20260613192502017201820192020202120222023202425202582026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

IPC subclass coverage

G06F (electric digital data processing) appears in 66.3% of the 83 records and G06N (AI-model computing) in 54.2%, confirming that most filings frame the attack or defense as a general computing or machine-learning claim rather than a domain-specific one. H04L (digital transmission) reaches 24.1%, reflecting attacks framed around network or API access. G06Q, G10L, G16H, G06K and G06V each sit at or below 10.8%, showing that commerce, speech, healthcare and vision-specific attack claims are comparatively rare.

IPC subclass coverageG06F · Electric digital data processi…5566.3%G06N · Computing based on AI models4554.2%H04L · Digital information transmissi…2024.1%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…910.8%G10L · Speech & audio analysis/synthe…44.8%G16H · Healthcare informatics44.8%G06K · Data recognition & presentation33.6%G06V · Image/video recognition22.4%Other56.0%

Shares are the percentage of the 83 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 Privacy Attacks on Models covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Privacy Attacks on Models with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about privacy attacks on models and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Representative Filing

A representative filing and the most-cited prior art

Filed 2026-03-05 · Origin Research and Innovation LLC
WO2026050683A12026-03-05

Method and system for safeguarding data privacy and security against adversarial attacks

ORIGIN RESEARCH AND INNOVATION LLC

The filing describes a pipeline that stores a multi-type dataset, preprocesses it per data type, builds a victim model for each type, and then runs membership inference, property inference and reconstruction attacks against those victim models while logging performance metrics. The output is an attack dataset combining performance metrics and dataset features per data type — effectively a generalized, automated auditing harness rather than a single attack technique.Its breadth — covering multiple attack types and data modalities in one claimed pipeline — is what makes it worth tracking rather than any single novel attack step.

WO2026050683A1 — patent drawing 1WO2026050683A1 — patent drawing 2
View full filing →
Most-cited records in this landscape
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US20190370440A1Protecting deep learning models using watermarking117
2US20220114399A1System and method for machine learning fairness testing86
3US20240370865A1Method and System to Implement an NFT Architecture Framework for Bitcoin Inscriptions, Ordinals and Smart Con…44
4US20220138348A1Interpretability Framework for Differentially Private Deep Learning32
5WO2021010896A1Method and system for distributed data management28
6US20260017386A1Systems and Methods for Protecting Machine Learning (ML) Units, Artificial Intelligence (AI) Units, Large Lan…21
7WO2026024864A1Know your model and know your data systems and methods for transactions12
8WO2026024917A1Systems, methods, kits, and apparatuses for know your model systems in value chain networks12
9EP4083868A1Federated learning for preserving privacy11
10WO2026024918A1Ai-based energy edge platforms, systems, and methods10

Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence, not current relevance.

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 Privacy Attacks on Models covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. 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
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 →
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 →
Signal Check

What the filing data actually indicates

Three read-outs from the dataset that matter more than the raw counts on their own.

Concentration
31.3%
of 83 records held by top 5 assignees

Ownership is spread thin at the top

The five most active filers together hold 26 of the 83 records in scope — 31.3% of the field — and the leader alone accounts for just 6. Extending to the top ten only reaches 48.2% of all records. No single company has cornered the claim space here.

Ranked leaders, 68 companies total
Growth
+325%
filings 2021 → 2024

The field went from experimental to active in three years

Annual filings rose from 4 in 2021 to 17 in 2024. That is the last year publication counts can be treated as complete; 2025's count of 25 and 2026's partial 8 are still filling in under the usual 18-month publication lag.

2021=4, 2024=17
Composition
66.3%
of records carry a G06F class

Claims skew toward general computing framing

Two-thirds of records sit in G06F and over half in G06N, meaning most attack and defense claims are drafted as general data-processing or AI-model claims rather than tied to a specific application domain, which leaves domain-specific framings comparatively open.

G06F 66.3%, G06N 54.2%
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 privacy attacks on models, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Privacy Attacks on Models covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Competitive Set

Who is filing, and what is still open

The ranking spans 68 companies across telecom, enterprise software, cloud and financial services — a mix that reflects how many industries now need to audit their own models for privacy leakage.

Leader
6
records

The top filer holds a modest lead

The leading assignee holds 6 of the 83 records in scope, a share that signals early positioning rather than dominance. With fifth place at 5 records and tenth place at 2, the gap between leader and long tail is narrow.

Top 5 combined: 31.3% of records
Long tail
68
companies ranked

A wide base of single- and low-count filers

Most of the 68 ranked companies hold only a handful of records each, spanning telecom operators, cloud platforms, financial institutions and universities. That breadth suggests privacy-attack auditing is being claimed as a feature across many product lines rather than owned by specialists.

Top 10 combined: 48.2% of records
Receiving offices
40
US filings

Filing activity is concentrated in the US and via PCT

The United States accounts for 40 filings and the WIPO/PCT route for 16, with India a distant third at 13. Europe, Germany and China each show single-digit counts, indicating this is currently a US-centred filing strategy with international protection sought selectively via PCT.

US 40, PCT 16, India 13
🔍
Under-claimed sub-areas worth watching
Based on the IPC composition, these branches carry far fewer claims relative to the core computing classes.
Speech/audio memorization auditingHealthcare-informatics membership inferenceImage/video reconstruction attack defensesBusiness-process attack-surface scoringData-recognition canary insertion
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Google LLC1—
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)0—
Oracle International Corporation0-100%
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.0—
SAP SE0—
BEEKEEPERAI INC0—
Royal Bank of Canada0—
STRONG FORCE TX PORTFOLIO 2018 LLC0-100%
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Privacy Attacks on Models covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Where to take this next

The dataset points to a field with room to move — the questions below help translate that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision.

Map claim scope against the leader's portfolio

With the top filer holding only 6 of 83 records, a claim-by-claim comparison against that portfolio can clarify whether a proposed filing sits inside or outside its coverage.

Run a claim comparison in Eureka →

Test a filing in the under-claimed branches

Speech, healthcare and vision-specific attack claims are thin relative to the general-computing classes — worth checking before assuming the space is occupied.

Explore white space in Eureka →

Track momentum among active filers

Filing activity moved quickly between 2021 and 2024; monitoring which assignees keep filing versus who has gone quiet helps prioritise where to watch next.

Set up assignee tracking in Eureka →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Privacy Attacks on Models covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about this landscape

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Privacy Attacks on Models covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Privacy Attacks on Models in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole privacy attacks on models corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.