Remote Attestation Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The leading assignee alone accounts for 24 of 71 records, and the top 5 combined hold 69.0% of all 71 records in scope.
- Filing has cooled from its peak. Activity peaked at 12 records in 2021 and fell to 5 by 2024, a 58% decline over that span — though 2025-2026 figures are still incomplete due to publication lag.
- Claims cluster in two IPC subclasses. G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 77.5% of records and H04L (digital transmission) on 40.8%, leaving IoT, AI-model and vehicle/drone-specific attestation thinly claimed.
Filing growth compares 2021 (12 records) with 2024 (5) — 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 71 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Remote attestation lets one system cryptographically prove to another that its software stack has not been tampered with, typically by chaining a root of trust, a measurement log and a signed attestation report back to a known-good platform configuration. This landscape draws on 71 published records dated 2015-01-01 through 2026-07-31 that reference secure boot, boot integrity, platform configuration or measurement-log mechanics alongside software or runtime integrity verification.
The dataset spans general-purpose computing security down to embedded and IoT variants, with a small but distinct tail into aerospace and unmanned systems. Filing is dominated by a handful of large technology and semiconductor firms, with a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants working narrower implementations.
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 71 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing rose to a 2021 peak, then declined
Annual filings climbed from 4 in 2017 to a peak of 12 in 2021, then fell to 5 by 2024 — a 58% decline over that three-year span. Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and should not be read as a continued drop.
G06F and H04L dominate; niche classes stay thin
G06F (electric digital data processing) touches 77.5% of the 71 records and H04L (digital transmission) touches 40.8%; IoT-specific G16Y sits at 5.6%, and AI-model, business-process, typesetting, aircraft and drone classes each appear on one or two records. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 71 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Remote Attestation for Software Integrity with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about remote attestation for software integrity and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
Software integrity protection method and apparatus, and software integrity verification method and apparatus (CA3184034A1)
A first device obtains a first software package carrying a signature made by a first party using a first private key. The first device then signs that package again with a second private key controlled by a second party, producing a third package that carries both signatures — layering a second party's attestation on top of an original software author's signature before the package is distributed or executed.Two-party, dual-signature chain rather than a single root-of-trust check.
View full filing| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US9177153B1 | Verifying integrity and guaranteeing execution of code on untrusted computer platform | 188 |
| 2 | US20160330601A1 | Method and system for managing public safety in at least one of unknown, unexpected, unwanted and untimely si… | 79 |
| 3 | US20190266331A1 | Security processor for an embedded system | 38 |
| 4 | US20220070178A1 | Self-managed trust in internet of things networks | 23 |
| 5 | US20140259117A1 | Trusted execution thread in an embedded multithreaded system | 22 |
| 6 | US20200243205A1 | Building device with blockchain based verification of building device files | 15 |
| 7 | US20200226292A1 | Protecting integrity of log data | 11 |
| 8 | US20240419771A1 | PEEiRS: PASSIVE EVALUATION OF ENDPOINT IDENTITY AND RISK AS A SURROGATE AUTHENTICATION FACTOR | 10 |
| 9 | US9892284B2 | Trusted execution thread in an embedded multithreaded system | 10 |
| 10 | US20250258951A1 | Systems and methods for zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) modeling | 9 |
Citation counts are drawn from a searched corpus and skew toward older filings; treat them as a signal of influence rather than of current commercial weight.
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 things worth knowing before drafting claims or scoping a freedom-to-operate review in this space.
The field is not wide open at the top
The leading assignee holds 24 of 71 records outright, and the top 5 combined hold 69.0% of the whole dataset. New entrants are more likely to find open ground in implementation detail — specific measurement-log formats, embedded variants — than in the core attestation-report and root-of-trust mechanics.
Filing has cooled from its 2021 peak, not accelerated
Annual filings fell 58% between the 2021 peak of 12 and 2024's 5, the last year with a reasonably complete count. That is a real deceleration in publicly disclosed filing, distinct from the incomplete 2025-2026 tail, which understates activity because of publication lag.
Core computing claims dominate; IoT and edge variants trail
G06F carries three-quarters of records while G16Y IoT-specific data processing sits at 5.6% and AI-model classing (G06N) at 2.8%. That gap suggests attestation mechanics for IoT fleets and AI-model integrity are still being adapted from general-purpose computing claims rather than claimed natively.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to remote attestation for software integrity, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape and where activity is thinning
22 companies make up the full ranked list this dataset returns. Filing is led by one company at 24 records, with a sharp drop to the fifth and tenth positions.
One filer sets the pace by a wide margin
The top-ranked assignee's 24 records are more than double the combined count of positions two through five, indicating a company that treats attestation as core infrastructure rather than a peripheral feature claim.
A steep drop-off after the leader, then a plateau
Both the fifth-place and tenth-place assignees sit at 2 records each, meaning the mid-field is flat rather than tiered — there is no obvious second-tier leader to watch, just a broad group of firms with similarly modest footprints.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet even among leaders
Several of the most active historical filers show zero records in the latest year, some down 100% year over year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this likely reflects incomplete recent data rather than an actual halt in R&D, but it means the visible pipeline for 2025-2026 is thin.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Siemens AG | 0 | -100% |
| Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Qualcomm Incorporated | 0 | -100% |
| REBELLIONS INC | 0 | -100% |
| MaxLinear, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Infineon Technologies AG | 0 | — |
| Intel Corporation | 0 | — |
| Johnson Controls Tyco IP Holdings (Tyco Fire & Security) | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The dataset points to a field with an entrenched leader, a cooling filing curve and clear technology gaps. The next steps depend on whether the goal is defensive clearance or a first-mover filing.
Map claims against the leader's portfolio
With one assignee holding 24 of 71 records, any new filing in core root-of-trust or attestation-report mechanics should be checked against that portfolio specifically, not just the field average.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTest claim language in the under-claimed branches
IoT, AI-model and vehicle/drone-specific attestation carry a fraction of the filing density of general computing claims — a specific, narrow claim there faces less prior art to design around.
Run a claim novelty check in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
In this landscape it refers to mechanisms that let one device or system prove to another, using cryptographic evidence, that its software has not been altered. The recurring technical elements are a root of trust, a measurement log recording boot or runtime state, and a signed attestation report that a verifier checks against a known-good platform configuration. Patents in this space typically claim some combination of the measurement step, the signing or reporting step, or the verification logic on the receiving end, rather than the underlying cryptography itself.
The ranked list covers 22 companies, with the leading assignee holding 24 of the 71 records in scope — well ahead of the rest of the field. The top 5 assignees combined account for 69.0% of all 71 records, so filing is concentrated rather than evenly spread. Beyond the leader, the field thins quickly, with fifth and tenth place both sitting at only 2 records each.
Filing peaked in 2021 at 12 records and had fallen to 5 by 2024, a 58% decline over that three-year window. That is the most reliable read available, because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, which means the 2025-2026 figures in this dataset are still incomplete and should not be read as evidence of a further slowdown. Anyone tracking this space should expect the 2025-2026 counts to rise as later publications catch up.
The clearest gaps sit outside the two dominant IPC subclasses: G06F, which touches 77.5% of the 71 records, and H04L, at 40.8%. IoT-specific processing (G16Y) appears on only 5.6% of records, and AI-model-related classing (G06N) on just 2.8%, with single-digit record counts in vehicle and drone-specific classes. That points to IoT fleet attestation, AI-model integrity checks, and vehicle or drone boot integrity as areas with comparatively little claim density relative to the core computing mechanics.
CA3184034A1 describes a two-party, dual-signature software integrity scheme: a first device holds a package already signed by one party, then re-signs it with a second party's private key before distribution, producing a package that carries both signatures. It is a specific chain-of-custody mechanism rather than a general root-of-trust or measurement-log claim, so it constrains dual-signature repackaging schemes most directly. Filings built around single-signature attestation, hardware-rooted measurement logs, or verifier-side platform configuration checks sit on different technical ground and would need a separate freedom-to-operate review against the broader portfolio of the assignee behind it.
Research Remote Attestation for Software Integrity in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole remote attestation for software integrity 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.