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


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20190370440A1 | Protecting deep learning models using watermarking | 117 |
| 2 | US20220114399A1 | System and method for machine learning fairness testing | 86 |
| 3 | US20240370865A1 | Method and System to Implement an NFT Architecture Framework for Bitcoin Inscriptions, Ordinals and Smart Con… | 44 |
| 4 | US20220138348A1 | Interpretability Framework for Differentially Private Deep Learning | 32 |
| 5 | WO2021010896A1 | Method and system for distributed data management | 28 |
| 6 | US20260017386A1 | Systems and Methods for Protecting Machine Learning (ML) Units, Artificial Intelligence (AI) Units, Large Lan… | 21 |
| 7 | WO2026024864A1 | Know your model and know your data systems and methods for transactions | 12 |
| 8 | WO2026024917A1 | Systems, methods, kits, and apparatuses for know your model systems in value chain networks | 12 |
| 9 | EP4083868A1 | Federated learning for preserving privacy | 11 |
| 10 | WO2026024918A1 | Ai-based energy edge platforms, systems, and methods | 10 |
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.
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 →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 →Three read-outs from the dataset that matter more than the raw counts on their own.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Google LLC | 1 | — |
| Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) | 0 | — |
| Oracle International Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. | 0 | — |
| SAP SE | 0 | — |
| BEEKEEPERAI INC | 0 | — |
| Royal Bank of Canada | 0 | — |
| STRONG FORCE TX PORTFOLIO 2018 LLC | 0 | -100% |
The dataset points to a field with room to move — the questions below help translate that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision.
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 →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 →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 →This landscape scopes filings that combine an attack technique — membership inference, model inversion, or training data extraction — with an evaluation or defense mechanism such as memorization measurement, attack success rate scoring, canary insertion, or a formal threat model and auditing procedure. Filings that describe only an attack technique without any evaluation or defense angle fall outside this scope. That combination reflects how the field is actually being claimed: as auditing and defense tooling built around known attack techniques, not the attacks in isolation.
The ranking covers 68 companies across the 83 records in scope, and it is genuinely fragmented: the leading assignee holds only 6 records, fifth place holds 5, and tenth place holds 2. The top five assignees combined account for 31.3% of all records, and the top ten reach 48.2%. There is no single dominant filer, which means freedom-to-operate analysis in this space has to look across a long list of moderate-sized portfolios rather than one gatekeeper.
Yes, sharply. Annual filings rose from 4 in 2021 to 17 in 2024, a 325% increase over that three-year span, tracking the wider push to formally audit machine learning models before deployment. Counts for 2025 and 2026 appear in the data too, but publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so those most recent years are still incomplete and should not be read as the trend flattening.
The two dominant IPC subclasses are G06F, electric digital data processing, appearing in 66.3% of the 83 records, and G06N, AI-model computing, at 54.2%. H04L, digital transmission, appears in 24.1% of records, capturing attacks framed around network or API access. Domain-specific classes — G10L for speech, G16H for healthcare, G06K for data recognition, and G06V for image and video recognition — each sit at or below 10.8%, indicating that most claims are written as general computing or machine-learning claims rather than tied to a specific application.
The IPC composition points to speech/audio, healthcare informatics, and image/video recognition as branches with comparatively few claims relative to the dominant general-computing classes. A first claim there would tie a specific attack technique, such as membership inference, to a domain-specific data type and an evaluation metric particular to that domain — for example, a canary-insertion auditing method scoped to medical imaging models rather than generic model classes. Reviewing the most-cited records and the representative filing's broad, multi-modality framing is a useful starting point before drafting into a narrower domain.
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.
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.
This page