Qubit Pulse Shaping Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
A data-driven view of qubit pulse shaping and quantum control patents: 149 records, filing trends from 2017 to 2026, assignee concentration, IPC composition, and where claim space remains open.
Filing growth = 2021 (7 records) → 2024 (21); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 149 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What qubit pulse shaping patents actually cover
Qubit pulse shaping sits at the intersection of quantum hardware control and classical signal processing: claims here describe how a control system generates, calibrates or corrects the microwave, laser or magnetic pulses that drive a qubit between states. The dataset in scope spans 2015 to 2026 and holds 149 published records, drawn from a search built around pulse-shaping and pulse-control language tied explicitly to qubits, so it captures both dedicated pulse-control filings and broader quantum-computing applications that claim pulse shaping as a component. Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate true filing activity.
The practical question for a filer is not whether this space is active — the growth curve answers that — but which layer of the stack still has room. Pulse-generation hardware, calibration algorithms, and error-mitigation routines built on top of pulse control are claimed at very different densities, and that unevenness is where the opportunity and the risk both sit.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 149 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which technical classes carry the claim volume.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings rose from 3 in 2017 to a peak of 35 in 2023, with the 2021-to-2024 span alone showing filings grow from 7 to 21, a +200% increase. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in as publications catch up to filing dates, so the apparent tail-off at the end of the chart is a lag artifact, not a slowdown.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
IPC subclass composition
G06N (AI-based computing methods) appears on 83.2% of the 149 records in scope, well ahead of H03K pulse-technique circuits at 15.4% and G06F digital data processing at 10.7%. Because records can carry multiple classes, these figures are shares of the full record set, not a partition of it — a single filing routinely claims both the computational control method and the underlying pulse circuitry.
Shares are the percentage of the 149 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Quantum Control & Error Correction: Qubit Pulse Shaping Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about quantum control & error correction: qubit pulse shaping patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative record and the most-cited prior art
Laser oscillator (US20230075435A1)
The filing describes a ring resonator built from an optical fiber loop, an optical amplifier that maintains pulse amplitude around the loop, and three optical fibers each connected to a polarization controller. A laser pulse extracted from the loop at a set branch ratio has its polarization state changed by the controllers before being recombined, producing a macroscopic entanglement state with strong quantum correlation in the polarization degree of freedom.The claimed pulse is explicitly treated as a qubit, which is why this record falls inside a pulse-shaping search built around qubit-specific language rather than general photonics.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US9858531B1 | Fault tolerant scalable modular quantum computer architecture with an enhanced control of multi-mode coupling… | 349 |
| 2 | US20180114138A1 | Fault-tolerant scalable modular quantum computer architecture with an enhanced control of multi-mode coupling… | 128 |
| 3 | US20190042973A1 | Apparatus and method for arbitrary qubit rotation | 101 |
| 4 | US20180322409A1 | Individual qubit excitation control | 75 |
| 5 | US9996801B2 | Microwave-free control of a superconductor-based quantum computer | 69 |
| 6 | US10223643B1 | Reduction and/or mitigation of crosstalk in quantum bit gates | 67 |
| 7 | US20170116542A1 | Microwave-free control of a superconductor-based quantum computer | 65 |
| 8 | WO2017078735A1 | Individual qubit excitation control | 64 |
| 9 | WO2019063117A1 | Reduction and/or mitigation of crosstalk in quantum bit gates | 47 |
| 10 | US7899092B2 | Fast quantum gates with ultrafast chirped pulses | 32 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later filings, not as a ranking 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 concentration and composition mean for a filing decision
The ranking and the class breakdown point in the same direction: a small group of players holds a disproportionate share of granted control-pulse claim space, while several adjacent technical branches remain thinly claimed.
The top of the field is steep, not gradual
The leading assignee alone holds 25 records against 8 at fifth place and 4 at tenth — a sharp drop rather than an even distribution. Combined, the top 5 account for 39.6% of all 149 records in scope, and the top 10 extend that to 58.4%.
Activity accelerated sharply, then the record thins from lag
Annual filings grew from 7 in 2021 to 21 in 2024, a +200% rise that lines up with quantum hardware programs moving from lab demonstrations toward scaled control systems. 2023 remains the peak year recorded so far, at 35 filings.
Software-defined control claims dominate the class mix
G06N appears on 83.2% of the 149 records, while H03K pulse-circuit classifications sit at 15.4% and G02F optical modulation at 10.1%. That gap suggests most filers are protecting the control algorithm and calibration logic rather than the underlying pulse-generation hardware.
Filing still centres on the US and PCT route
The United States receives 62 records, followed by WIPO's PCT route at 34 and the EPO at 25 — Canada, Australia and the UK each sit in single digits. That pattern reflects where quantum hardware programs are headquartered rather than where downstream manufacturing will happen.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to quantum control & error correction: qubit pulse shaping patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The figures above describe the field as it stands in the dataset. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means drilling into specific claim language and specific assignees.
Map claim language against your own draft
Run your working claim set against the most-cited records and the leading assignees' portfolios to see which limitations are already occupied and which are open.
Explore claims in EurekaTrack the leading assignees' filing cadence
The steep drop from the top ranked assignee to fifth place suggests a small group is setting the pace; watching their year-over-year filing rate flags where the next wave of claims will land.
Monitor assignees in EurekaCheck white space in under-claimed IPC branches
Classes with low record share relative to G06N — such as B82Y or H10N — may hold genuine open space rather than simply reflecting a smaller technical area.
Search white space in EurekaFrequently asked questions
It is concentrated but not monopolised. The top 5 assignees together hold 39.6% of the 149 records in scope, and extending to the top 10 brings that to 58.4%. The drop-off is steep at the very top — the leading assignee holds 25 records versus 8 at fifth place — which means a handful of organisations set the pace while a long tail of 70 ranked assignees files more sparingly.
The trend through the last complete filing year shows strong growth: annual filings rose from 7 in 2021 to 21 in 2024, a +200% increase, with 2023 the peak year recorded so far at 35 filings. Figures for 2025 and 2026 look lower only because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so those years are still filling in rather than showing an actual slowdown. Anyone reading the tail of the chart as a decline is likely misreading a reporting lag.
G06N, the classification covering AI-based computing methods, appears on 83.2% of the 149 records in scope, making it by far the most common class. H03K, covering pulse technique and logic circuits more directly, sits at 15.4%, with G06F digital data processing and G02F optical modulation each in the 10% range. Because a single record can carry several classes, this pattern indicates that most filers protect the control algorithm and calibration software layered on top of pulse generation, rather than the pulse-generation hardware itself.
The United States receives the largest share of filings at 62 records, ahead of the WIPO PCT route at 34 and the European Patent Office at 25. Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom each register in single digits. This distribution tracks where quantum hardware development programs are based rather than where any eventual manufacturing or deployment will occur, so it should not be read as a market-size signal on its own.
The class composition points to it indirectly: subclasses with comparatively low record shares against the dominant G06N figure, such as B82Y nanotechnology applications at 6.0% or H10N solid-state devices at 5.4%, carry far fewer claims than the control-algorithm layer. That does not guarantee the space is technically open, but it does mean the claim density is lower, which is where a freedom-to-operate search is most likely to find room rather than dense prior art.
Research Quantum Control & Error Correction: Qubit Pulse Shaping Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole quantum control & error correction: qubit pulse shaping 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.