Quantum Materials & Devices Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 62.2% of all 90 records sit with just five assignees, but the ranking still runs to 36 companies — a concentrated top with a long single-filing tail below it.
- Filings rose 91% from 11 in 2021 to 21 in 2024, the last year the trend can be read as complete before publication lag understates 2025-2026.
- G06N covers 80.0% of records while semiconductor device classes (H01L, H10D) and materials classes (C09K) sit in single digits — claim density is uneven across the stack.
Filing growth compares 2021 (11 records) with 2024 (21) — 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 90 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape draws on 90 published records filed between 2015 and 2026 that combine quantum-material terminology with device- and control-layer language such as qubit array, quantum gate, control pulse, quantum readout, cryogenic device and state preparation. The scope therefore sits at the intersection of materials characterisation and the control electronics and software that make a qubit usable, rather than materials science alone. Patent families, not raw document counts, anchor the assignee ranking, which neutralises continuation filings and multi-jurisdiction duplicates.
Coverage runs from the 2015 filing baseline through the 2026-08-31 data cut-off. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in the trend chart are still filling in and should not be read as a decline.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 90 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing activity, 2017-2026
Filings climbed from 7 in 2017 to a peak of 21 in 2024, including the +91% run from 11 in 2021 to 21 in 2024. 2025 and 2026 show fewer records so far, consistent with publication lag rather than a slowdown.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears in 80.0% of the 90 records, well ahead of G06F (15.6%) and G16C (13.3%). Hardware-adjacent classes — H01L, B82Y, H10D, C09K — each cover under 8% of records, meaning most claims in scope describe control and computation rather than the material or device stack itself.
Shares are the percentage of the 90 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Quantum Materials & Devices Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about quantum materials & devices patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
WO2025207164A2 — Systems and methods for quantum material-related characterizations
The application describes interacting one or more quantum states with a target material, generating data from the measurement of that interaction, and determining a resulting change in the quantum state to characterise the material. It further generates data elements describing the material's characteristics based on that determined change.Filed by an individual assignee rather than a corporate lab, illustrating that entry into this space does not require large-institution backing.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20250259085A1 | Convergent Intelligence Fabric for Multi-Domain Orchestration of Distributed Agents with Hierarchical Memory … | 209 |
| 2 | US20200125985A1 | Qubit allocation for noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers | 61 |
| 3 | US20250259043A1 | Platform for orchestrating fault-tolerant, security-enhanced networks of collaborative and negotiating agents… | 57 |
| 4 | US20210173660A1 | Parallel streaming apparatus and method for a fault tolerant quantum computer | 36 |
| 5 | US20250259044A1 | Platform for orchestrating a scalable, privacy-enabled network of collaborative and negotiating agents utiliz… | 28 |
| 6 | US20180157775A1 | Method for estimating the thermodynamic properties of a quantum ising model with transverse field | 24 |
| 7 | US20200395448A1 | Non-equilibrium polaronic quantum phase-condensate based electrical devices | 18 |
| 8 | WO2022132389A2 | Topological qubits in a quantum spin liquid | 13 |
| 9 | US20240029911A1 | Topological qubits in a quantum spin liquid | 12 |
| 10 | WO2022132389A3 | Topological qubits in a quantum spin liquid | 9 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence, 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 read-throughs from the concentration, trend and classification data above.
A narrow top, then a long tail
Five assignees hold 62.2% of the 90 records in scope, and the top ten reach 86.7%. Below that the ranked list runs to 36 companies, most holding a handful of filings each — a classic concentrated-top, long-tail structure rather than a fragmented field.
Growth through the last complete year
Filings grew from 11 in 2021 to 21 in 2024, the last year the trend can be treated as complete. The leading assignees show flat or zero activity in the most recent year on record, but that reads as publication lag rather than withdrawal from the field.
Control and computation dominate the claims
G06N (AI-based computing) touches 80.0% of the 90 records, well above any hardware class. G01R (measurement), H01L and H10D (semiconductor devices) each sit under 11%, suggesting the device and materials layers are comparatively under-claimed relative to the control and algorithmic layer.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to quantum materials & devices patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gate sits
The leader holds 16 records; fifth place holds 7 and tenth place holds 3 — a steep drop-off that defines who a new entrant is actually up against.
A clear single leader
The top-ranked assignee holds 16 of the 90 records in scope, roughly twice the fifth-place count of 7. That gap alone signals a company treating this as a core filing programme rather than exploratory work.
A cluster of established labs and firms
Universities, a large semiconductor firm and specialist quantum-computing companies occupy the mid-table, each holding single-digit record counts. Several of these pairs co-file, pointing to active university-industry collaboration rather than isolated filing.
A wide long tail of single-filing entrants
The ranking runs to 36 companies total, most holding only one or two records. That is where a new claim is least likely to collide with an entrenched portfolio, though it also means less prior art to design around.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Google LLC | 0 | -100% |
| President & Fellows of Harvard College | 0 | — |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 0 | — |
| BASF SE | 0 | — |
| 1QB Information Technologies Inc | 0 | — |
| Qomplx Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Intel Corp | 0 | — |
| Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Ltd | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether you are filing, licensing or monitoring competitors.
Pressure-test a draft claim against the leaders
Run a candidate claim in the control-pulse or readout space against the portfolios of the top five assignees before committing to drafting.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaTrack the co-filing clusters
The strongest co-assignee pairs in this dataset point to active university-industry collaborations worth watching for licensing or partnership signals.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaWatch the semiconductor and materials classes
H01L, H10D and C09K each cover under 8% of records — thin coverage relative to the control layer, and a plausible place for a first-mover claim.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaCommon questions on quantum materials and devices patenting
One assignee leads with 16 of the 90 records in scope, roughly twice the count held by the fifth-place company at 7. The top five assignees together hold 62.2% of all 90 records, and the top ten reach 86.7%, so the field is concentrated at the top even though the full ranking runs to 36 companies. Below the top ten the counts fall quickly to single-digit and single-filing entrants, forming a long tail rather than an even spread.
Filings grew from 11 in 2021 to a peak of 21 in 2024, a 91% increase over that span, which is the clearest read of momentum in this dataset. 2025 and 2026 show fewer published records, but that reflects publication lag of roughly 18 months rather than an actual drop in filing activity. Treat 2024 as the last year in the trend that can be read as complete.
G06N, covering AI-based computing methods, appears in 80.0% of the 90 records in scope, far ahead of any other class. G06F (electric digital data processing) and G16C (computational chemistry) follow at 15.6% and 13.3% respectively. Hardware- and materials-specific classes such as H01L, H10D, B82Y and C09K each sit under 8%, indicating that claims in this dataset skew toward control and computational methods rather than the physical device or material stack.
The IPC composition shows a heavy skew toward computational and control-layer classes (G06N, G06F) and comparatively thin coverage in semiconductor device classes (H01L, H10D) and specialised materials classes (C09K), each under 8% of the 90 records. That gap suggests cryogenic readout circuitry, qubit substrate materials and device packaging are less crowded than the control-software layer. A first claim there would need to tie a specific material or device geometry to a measurable qubit performance outcome rather than a general control method.
WO2025207164A2 describes a method of characterising a target material by interacting one or more quantum states with it, measuring the resulting interaction, and determining a change in the quantum state to derive data about the material's characteristics. It is filed by an individual assignee rather than a corporate lab, which shows that filing in this space does not require large-institution resources. Anyone building a quantum-state-based material characterisation tool should read its claim scope closely before assuming a clear path, since the method steps described are broad enough to reach several implementation approaches.
Research Quantum Materials & Devices Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole quantum materials & devices 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.