Quantum Computing Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 31.6% concentration. The top 5 ranked assignees combined account for 6,778 of the 21,462 records in scope — a leadership group that has pulled well ahead of the long tail.
- Filing has plateaued, not fallen. From 2021 to 2024 — the last year with mostly complete publication — filings moved from 2,500 to 2,430, roughly flat rather than declining.
- G06N dominates the claim space. 74.0% of all records carry a G06N (AI-model computing) classification, far ahead of the next-largest classes, H10N and H01L, at around 12-13% each.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2,500 records) with 2024 (2,430) — 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 21,462 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the quantum computing patent record actually shows
The dataset covers 21,462 published records filed against quantum computing search terms spanning qubit arrays, quantum gates, control pulses and quantum readout, from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off. Filing activity rose sharply through the early 2020s, peaked at 2,979 records in 2023, and has since settled into a plateau rather than a decline once the reporting lag is accounted for. Publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 figures in any chart understate real activity and should not be read as a slowdown.
Filing is concentrated at the top: the leading assignee alone accounts for 2,716 records, and the five-way and ten-way leadership groups together hold 31.6% and 41.2% of all records in scope respectively. Below that leadership tier sits a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants, which is where much of the unclaimed technical territory in this field is likely to be found.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views matter here: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records are distributed across the IPC classes that describe the underlying hardware and software claims.
Filing volume, 2017-2026
Annual filings climbed from 872 in 2017 to a peak of 2,979 in 2023. The 2021-2024 window, the most recent span with largely complete publication, moved from 2,500 to 2,430 filings — a roughly flat trajectory rather than a downturn. Years after 2024 will continue to fill in as publication catches up with filing.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 74.0% of the 21,462 records in scope, reflecting how much quantum computing patenting is framed through machine-learning and algorithmic claims rather than hardware alone. H10N and H01L, covering solid-state devices and semiconductor structures, sit near 12-13% each, with B82Y nanotechnology, H03K pulse-technique circuits and H04L/H04B communications classes trailing further behind. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should be read individually against the full record count, not summed.
Shares are the percentage of the 21,462 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Quantum Computing Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about quantum computing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative filing and the most-cited prior art
US20250209356A1 — Quantum circuits for a neutral atom quantum processor
A data processing system comprising a classical computer connected to a neutral atom quantum processor implements a method that encodes part of a computational problem into quantum circuits with gate operations. A first quantum circuit maps an input variable to a Hilbert space via a feature map and parameterised ansatz. Digital and analog quantum gate operations entangle neutral atoms as their governing Hamiltonian evolves over time, with the classical computer orchestrating the process.Filed by PASQAL S.A.S., published 2025-06-26 — illustrates how neutral-atom hardware claims are now being paired with variational, machine-learning-style circuit design in a single filing.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20220366494A1 | Market orchestration system for facilitating electronic marketplace transactions | 438 |
| 2 | US7533068B2 | Analog processor comprising quantum devices | 381 |
| 3 | US7135701B2 | Adiabatic quantum computation with superconducting qubits | 368 |
| 4 | US9858531B1 | Fault tolerant scalable modular quantum computer architecture with an enhanced control of multi-mode coupling… | 348 |
| 5 | US20230123322A1 | Predictive Model Data Stream Prioritization | 338 |
| 6 | US20060225165A1 | Analog processor comprising quantum devices | 337 |
| 7 | US20160267032A1 | Processing Signals in a Quantum Computing System | 336 |
| 8 | US7876248B2 | Systems, methods and apparatus for local programming of quantum processor elements | 290 |
| 9 | US8195596B2 | Systems, devices, and methods for interconnected processor topology | 284 |
| 10 | US8190548B2 | Systems, devices, and methods for analog processing | 269 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate references within this searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current technical 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 filing strategy
Three patterns in the data are useful for anyone deciding where to file, litigate or partner in quantum computing.
Leadership is real but not exclusive
The top five assignees hold 31.6% of all records and the top ten hold 41.2%, meaning a majority of filings still sit outside the leadership group. That long tail is where freedom-to-operate work needs to look carefully, since it is less indexed by name recognition than the leaders' portfolios.
Algorithmic framing dominates hardware claims
Nearly three-quarters of records touch G06N, the AI-model computing class, even though the search targets qubit hardware and control. This suggests many quantum computing filings are being drafted with an algorithmic or machine-learning layer attached to the hardware claim, widening the scope examiners and competitors need to search.
The field has plateaued, not shrunk
Filings moved from 2,500 in 2021 to 2,430 in 2024, a roughly flat three-year span once the incomplete 2025-2026 years are set aside. Combined with a 2023 peak of 2,979, this points to a maturing filing cadence rather than retreat by the leadership group.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to quantum computing patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is still open
The ranked leaders sit alongside co-filing patterns between corporate and academic entities, and a set of technical branches that remain thin relative to the core hardware and algorithmic classes.
A clear leader ahead of a competitive second tier
The leading assignee's filing volume is well ahead of fifth place at 458 and tenth place at 312, showing a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one. Recent-year momentum figures, however, show sharp year-over-year declines across several leading filers, consistent with the publication lag rather than an actual pullback.
Corporate subsidiaries file jointly, universities partner with corporates
The strongest co-assignee pairing links a parent company to its own national subsidiary, a common structure for multinational filers managing regional patent offices. A separate pairing links a corporate quantum-hardware filer with a university, pointing to sponsored or joint research reaching the patent stage.
Filing is US-centred with strong PCT and EPO activity
The United States receives more than double the next-largest office, Europe (EPO), with WIPO's PCT route close behind. Australia, Canada and India each carry four-figure or low four-figure volumes, marking them as secondary but active jurisdictions for portfolio extension.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Google LLC | 7 | -91% |
| PsiQuantum Corp | 3 | -88% |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | 2 | -96% |
| RIGETTI & CO INC | 2 | -89% |
| Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | 1 | -95% |
| IonQ, Inc. | 1 | -94% |
| Quantinuum LLC | 1 | -98% |
| Intel Corporation | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with a stable leadership group, a wide algorithmic overlay on hardware claims, and specific technical branches with visibly thinner coverage.
Map freedom-to-operate against the leadership tier
Before filing in gate-operation or readout claims, check the leading assignees' portfolios directly rather than relying on the ranked list alone, since the drop from first to tenth place is steep and specific.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTrack the algorithmic overlay on hardware claims
With 74.0% of records touching G06N, drafting or opposing a hardware claim increasingly requires searching the machine-learning layer attached to it, not just the physical qubit or control claim.
Run a cross-class search in EurekaWatch the under-claimed branches for new entrants
Thin filing density in areas like cryogenic packaging or error-mitigation readout does not mean the technology is unimportant — it means the claim space is still open to a well-drafted first filing.
Monitor white space in EurekaCommon questions about quantum computing patents
One assignee leads the ranked list with 2,716 records, well ahead of the rest of the field; fifth place holds 458 and tenth place holds 312. The top five assignees combined account for 31.6% of all 21,462 records in scope, and the top ten account for 41.2%. Below that tier sits a long tail of companies and universities with far smaller portfolios, so a single leader does not translate into a monopoly over the whole field.
Filing activity rose steadily from 872 records in 2017 to a peak of 2,979 in 2023. Looking at the most recent span with largely complete publication, 2021 to 2024, filings moved from 2,500 to 2,430, essentially flat rather than declining. Figures for 2025 and 2026 will continue to rise as publication catches up, since publication typically lags filing by about 18 months.
G06N, the IPC class covering AI-model-based computing, appears on 74.0% of the 21,462 records in scope, making it by far the most common classification even though the underlying search targets qubit hardware and control. H10N and H01L, covering solid-state devices and semiconductors, each sit around 12-13%, with nanotechnology, pulse-technique circuits and digital communications classes trailing further behind. Because records can carry multiple classes, these percentages do not sum to 100% and should be read as independent shares of the same record base.
The data points to several under-claimed branches relative to the dominant hardware and algorithmic classes, including cryogenic control electronics packaging, multi-mode coupling calibration for trapped-ion qubits, and error-mitigation readout pulse shaping. These areas sit outside the heavily filed G06N and H10N classes, meaning claim density is lower without necessarily reflecting lower technical relevance. A first filer with a well-specified claim in one of these branches has more room to establish a foundational position than in the crowded core classes.
The United States receives the largest share of filings at 8,805 records, more than double the next office. Europe via the EPO follows with 3,421 records, and the WIPO PCT route accounts for 3,301, reflecting heavy use of international filing strategies. Australia, Canada and India form a secondary tier, each in the low thousands or high hundreds, useful for assessing where portfolio extension beyond the core US-Europe-PCT triangle is happening.
Research Quantum Computing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole quantum computing 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.