Software Testing Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 22.4% concentration at the top. The five most active assignees combined account for 2,291 of the 10,246 records in scope — a concentrated core with a long tail below it.
- Filings kept growing into 2024. From 573 records in 2021 to 627 in 2024, a 9% rise over that span, with 2023 the peak year so far at 696 records.
- Claims cluster almost entirely in one class. G06F covers 89.3% of the 10,246 records, while AI-linked filings under G06N sit far behind at 10.1% — a gap worth watching.
Filing growth compares 2021 (573 records) with 2024 (627) — 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 10,246 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this dataset covers
This landscape draws on 10,246 published records matched against automated software testing, software verification and related terms, cross-referenced with source code, test case, deployment pipeline, configuration management and distributed execution concepts. The scope spans filings from 2015 through the 2026-08-31 data cut-off, though the most recent one to two years are understated because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months.
Records are drawn from multiple receiving offices, led by the United States with 5,703 filings, followed by China at 1,493, the EPO at 808, WIPO's PCT route at 647, India at 507 and Australia at 182. That spread reflects both where testing and quality-engineering software is developed and where applicants choose to seek enforceable rights.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 10,246-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which technical classes carry the claim volume.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings rose from 528 in 2017 to a peak of 696 in 2023. The 2021-to-2024 span shows a 9% increase, from 573 to 627 records — real growth, not a plateau, even as the final two years in the chart understate true filing volume due to publication lag.
IPC subclass composition
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears in 89.3% of the 10,246 records, confirming this is fundamentally a data-processing claim space. G06N (AI-based computing) trails at 10.1%, with H04L (digital transmission), G06Q (business data processing) and smaller shares in G06K, G05B and H04N rounding out the picture. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to well over 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 10,246 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Software Testing & Quality Engineering Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about software testing & quality engineering patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
US20230251960A1 — Machine learning techniques for automated software testing configuration management
The application describes generating a graph data structure whose nodes represent test steps across test cases, with segments connecting nodes that share a test case. A query describing a testing change is processed into extracted features, which the system uses to generate test outcome requirements and identify relevant graph portions — effectively targeting which test cases a code change actually needs to touch.Filed by Optum, Inc.; published 2023-08-10.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5892900A | Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection | 6,074 |
| 2 | US20130152047A1 | System for distributed software quality improvement | 963 |
| 3 | US6157721A | Systems and methods using cryptography to protect secure computing environments | 825 |
| 4 | US6347398B1 | Automatic software downloading from a computer network | 824 |
| 5 | US6701514B1 | System, method, and article of manufacture for test maintenance in an automated scripting framework | 704 |
| 6 | US20020048369A1 | Systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection | 697 |
| 7 | US6907546B1 | Language-driven interface for an automated testing framework | 687 |
| 8 | US5778368A | Real-time embedded software respository with attribute searching apparatus and method | 551 |
| 9 | US6502102B1 | A table-driven automated scripting architecture | 518 |
| 10 | US6542739B1 | Priority and preemption service system for satellite related communication using central controller | 505 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and favour older filings; treat them as a signal of prior-art density, not current relevance.
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 indicate
Three findings that shape how a freedom-to-operate or whitespace review should be scoped in this field.
The core is concentrated, the rest is fragmented
Five assignees hold 2,291 of the 10,246 records in scope — 22.4% of the field. Extending to ten assignees adds only another 5 points, taking the combined share to 27.3% on 2,797 records. The bulk of filers sit in a long tail below the leader, which sat at 1,395 records.
Growth continued through the last complete filing year
Filings rose from 573 in 2021 to 627 in 2024, a 9% increase over the three-year span, with 2023 marking the highest single year recorded so far at 696 filings. Figures for 2025 and 2026 will rise as publication catches up with filing.
Claim space is dominated by one IPC subclass
G06F covers electric digital data processing and appears on 9,148 of the 10,246 records. G06N, the AI-computing class, appears on just 1,036 records — 10.1% — suggesting AI-specific testing claims remain a comparatively open sub-area relative to the dominant class.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to software testing & quality engineering patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | IBM UNITED KINGDOM LTD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT | 19 |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | IBM (China) Co., Ltd. | 5 |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | University of Nebraska-Lincoln | 4 |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | SAXENA ASHVINI KUMAR | 2 |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | ROBESON KYLE | 2 |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | PAL KALLOL | 2 |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | LEVI ANIL KUMAR | 2 |
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | LEE YOUNG WOOK | 2 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, the strongest being a pairing between an IBM entity and its UK intellectual property department at 19 shared records — evidence that most filings in this space are single-assignee rather than joint-development efforts.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders skew toward large enterprise software vendors and global IT services firms, but recent-year momentum data shows even the most prolific historical filers slowing sharply.
One assignee well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 1,395 records, more than ten times the count needed to reach fifth place at 124. That gap indicates a single dominant filer rather than a tightly bunched leadership group.
Recent-year filing has cooled across major historical filers
The leading assignee logged just 2 records in the latest year with 0% year-over-year change, and several other historically active filers recorded zero filings in the same period, with declines of -100% YoY where prior-year activity existed.
Joint filings are rare
Cross-assignee filing is uncommon in this space: only 10 co-assignee pairs exist in the dataset, concentrated around a small number of corporate-affiliate relationships rather than cross-company R&D partnerships.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | 2 | 0% |
| Microsoft Corporation | 0 | — |
| Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | 0 | — |
| Tata Consultancy Services Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| SAP SE | 0 | -100% |
| Sun Microsystems, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Wipro Ltd | 0 | — |
| Accenture Global Solutions Ltd | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated core, a long tail of single-filing entrants, and technical sub-areas that remain comparatively open.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on a specific claim
Concentration at the top means a small number of assignees hold disproportionate claim density in core G06F territory. Before filing in that space, check what the leading assignees actually claim, not just how many records they hold.
Explore claims in EurekaTrack momentum shifts before they show up in headlines
Several historically active filers show flat or negative year-over-year momentum in the latest tracked period. That shift is often visible in the data well before it shows up in product announcements or public strategy.
Monitor assignee activityScope white space in AI-linked testing claims
G06N-classed filings sit at 10.1% of records against G06F's 89.3%, a gap that suggests AI-specific test-generation and verification claims are less crowded than the core data-processing space.
Search white space in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee leads clearly with 1,395 records in this dataset, well ahead of the fifth-ranked assignee at 124 and the tenth at 89. The five most active assignees together account for 2,291 records, 22.4% of the 10,246 records in scope, which means the remaining filers form a long tail rather than a second tight cluster. This pattern is typical of enterprise software categories where a handful of large vendors and IT services firms file continuously while most other entrants file only occasionally.
Filing grew over the last fully-observable period: from 573 records in 2021 to 627 in 2024, a 9% increase, with the single highest year so far being 2023 at 696 records. Figures for 2025 and 2026 appear lower in the raw trend, but that reflects publication lag of roughly 18 months rather than an actual drop in filing activity. Any assessment of the most recent one to two years should be treated as provisional until later publications catch up.
The overwhelming majority of records, 89.3% of the 10,246 in scope, carry the G06F classification for electric digital data processing, confirming this field is claimed primarily as general data-processing technology. AI-based computing under G06N appears on 10.1% of records, and digital transmission (H04L), business data processing (G06Q), and smaller shares in wireless networks, data recognition, control systems and pictorial communication round out the composition. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages sum to well over 100% and should not be read as parts of a whole.
Relative to the dominant G06F claim space, sub-areas tied to AI-driven test generation, distributed execution fault correlation, deployment pipeline drift detection, and testing tied to video or pictorial interfaces and control systems show materially lower filing density. That does not guarantee those areas are unclaimed, but the comparative gap in class-level filing volume suggests less-crowded claim territory worth a targeted search before committing to a filing strategy there. A proper freedom-to-operate review should still check specific claim language rather than relying on class-level density alone.
Rarely, based on this dataset: only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the full record set. The strongest pairing links two related IBM entities at 19 shared records, and the next strongest pairs also involve affiliate relationships rather than cross-company joint development. This suggests that in software testing and quality engineering, patenting is predominantly a single-assignee activity, with corporate affiliates occasionally co-filing rather than independent companies partnering on shared IP.
Research Software Testing & Quality Engineering Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole software testing & quality engineering 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.