https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/supercomputing-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · High-Performance Computing
Supercomputing patents: mapping the architecture claims behind massively parallel systems
  • Filing peaked in 2021 at 234 records and had fallen to 92 by 2024, a 61% drop over that three-year span — though 2025-26 figures are still filling in as publication catches up with filing.
  • The top 5 assignees hold 42.4% of all 2,934 records in scope, rising to 49.6% across the top 10 — a field concentrated at the top with a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants behind it.
  • G06F digital data processing covers 74.4% of records while adjacent classes like G16B bioinformatics (3.0%) and G06Q business data processing (2.3%) show far thinner claim density.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
2,934
Published Records
42%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-61%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (234 records) with 2024 (92) — 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 2,934 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··8 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What the supercomputing patent record shows

Supercomputing patent activity, as captured by this search across 2,934 records published between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off, centres on processor architecture, memory hierarchy and cache coherence claims rather than on any single hardware form factor. The search string ties supercomputer and massively-parallel-computing terms to specific implementation mechanics — compute kernel, task parallelism, memory access — which is why the technology composition below skews so heavily toward general digital data processing rather than a narrow supercomputer-specific class.

Filing activity rose through the late 2010s, peaked in 2021, and has declined since — a pattern consistent with a wave of architecture claims being filed early in a platform cycle and tapering as the core mechanics get settled by a small group of large filers. Recent-year counts are undercounted because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, so the 2025-26 dip should not be read as a real slowdown.

Filing activity and technology composition, 2017-2026
  1. 1INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION554
  2. 2NVIDIA CORP437
  3. 3INTEL CORP145
  4. 4ILLUMINA INC56
  5. 5ICAT LLC52
  6. 6GLOBAL SUPERCOMPUTING CORP46
  7. 7HEALTH DISCOVERY CORP45
  8. 8INTERACTIC HOLDINGS LLC42
  9. 9HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEV LP40
  10. 10MCI INC39
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Supercomputing Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Data

Filing trends and technology composition

Two views of the same 2,934-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density behind the supercomputing label.

Filing trend, 2017-2026

Filings rose from 163 in 2017 to a peak of 234 in 2021, then fell to 92 by 2024 — a 61% decline over that three-year window. 2025 and 2026 counts are partial because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months; they should not yet be read as a continued fall.

Filing trend, 2017-2026063125188250163201720182019202023420212022202320242025132026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

G06F (electric digital data processing) appears in 74.4% of the 2,934 records in scope, far ahead of H04L digital information transmission at 14.3% and H05K printed circuits and assemblies at 10.1%. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares sum to more than 100% and should be read against the full record count, not against each other as parts of a whole.

Technology composition by IPC subclassG06F · Electric digital data processi…2,18374.4%H04L · Digital information transmissi…41914.3%H05K · Printed circuits & assemblies29610.1%G06N · Computing based on AI models1876.4%G06T · Image data processing & genera…1224.2%G16B · Bioinformatics893.0%G06K · Data recognition & presentation883.0%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…672.3%Other1,01334.5%

Shares are the percentage of the 2,934 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Supercomputing Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Supercomputing Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about supercomputing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key Patents

Representative filing and most-cited prior art

Representative Filing
US20110219208A12011-09-08

Multi-petascale highly efficient parallel supercomputer (US20110219208A1)

GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC.

A Multi-Petascale Highly Efficient Parallel Supercomputer of 100 petaOPS-scale computing, at decreased cost, power and footprint, and that allows for a maximum packaging density of processing nodes from an interconnect point of view. The Supercomputer exploits technological advances in VLSI that enables a computing model where many processors can be integrated into a single Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), with each ASIC computing node comprising a system-on-chip utilizing four or more processors on one die, each having full access to system resources and enabling adaptive partitioning of processors to compute or messaging I/O functions.Filed by GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC., published 2011-09-08 — illustrates the system-on-chip, multi-processor-per-die approach that recurs across the dataset's densest architecture claims.

US20110219208A1 — patent drawing 1US20110219208A1 — patent drawing 2
View full filing in Eureka
Most-cited records in this dataset
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US5999525AMethod for video telephony over a hybrid network1,229
2US6335927B1System and method for providing requested quality of service in a hybrid network1,203
3US5867494ASystem, method and article of manufacture with integrated video conferencing billing in a communication syste…1,181
4US20090216910A1Computing infrastructure1,026
5US20100332373A1System and method for participation in energy-related markets1,023
6US6754181B1System and method for a directory service supporting a hybrid communication system architecture992
7US6075938AVirtual machine monitors for scalable multiprocessors979
8US6731625B1System, method and article of manufacture for a call back architecture in a hybrid network with support for i…909
9US20020064149A1System and method for providing requested quality of service in a hybrid network874
10US20110219208A1Multi-petascale highly efficient parallel supercomputer827

Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on subsequent filers, not as a measure of current commercial relevance.

Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Supercomputing Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
Fastest

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 →
For builders

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 →
Insights

What the concentration and trend data mean for filing strategy

The numbers point to a field where a small group of large filers set the architecture baseline early, while the surrounding claim space — bioinformatics-adjacent and business-process-adjacent uses of the same parallel-compute mechanics — remains comparatively open.

Concentration
42.4%
held by the top 5 of 2,934 records

A leader-and-long-tail structure

The top 5 ranked assignees combine for 42.4% of all 2,934 records in scope, and the top 10 extend that to 49.6%. The leader alone accounts for 554 records against a fifth-place figure of 52 and a tenth-place figure of 39 — a steep drop-off that leaves most of the ranked list holding a handful of filings each.

Ranked leaders, not a top-50 or top-100 list
Momentum
-61%
2021 (234) to 2024 (92)

Post-peak decline, with a caveat on recency

Filing volume fell 61% from its 2021 peak of 234 to 92 in 2024, the most recent year that can be treated as complete. That decline sits alongside near-zero recent-year activity from several of the largest historical filers, suggesting the core architecture claims from this wave have already been staked out rather than that interest in the space has ended.

2025-26 figures are still filling in
Composition
74.4%
of records carry G06F

Claim density sits in general digital processing

G06F (electric digital data processing) touches nearly three-quarters of the 2,934 records, with H04L transmission and H05K printed-circuit classes trailing well behind. The thinner classes — G16B bioinformatics at 3.0% and G06Q business data processing at 2.3% — show where parallel-compute mechanics have been applied to a specific domain far less often than to general architecture.

Classes overlap; shares do not sum to 100%
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to supercomputing patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Co-filing is rare and concentrated
AssigneeCo-assigneeShared families
International Business Machine Corporation (IBM)GIAMPAPA MARK E9
International Business Machine Corporation (IBM)GARA ALAN G9
International Business Machine Corporation (IBM)COTEUS PAUL W9
International Business Machine Corporation (IBM)CHEN DONG9
Global Supercomputing CorpELLIOTT ISAAC K9
Global Supercomputing CorpEASTEP GUIDO M9
International Business Machine Corporation (IBM)TAKKEN TODD E7
International Business Machine Corporation (IBM)HEIDELBERGER PHILIP7

Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest links all sit around IBM-affiliated inventor teams filing three to a group of nine shared records — co-development across separate corporate entities is the exception here, not the pattern.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Supercomputing Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players

Who is filing, and who has slowed

Recent-year momentum diverges sharply from historical share: several of the largest filers by cumulative record count show little or no activity in the latest year, while one major processor vendor still shows a measurable, if declining, filing rate.

Leader
554 records
cumulative, largest in the ranking

IBM holds the largest share by far

International Business Machine Corporation's 554 records dwarf the fifth-place figure of 52, and its inventor teams also anchor most of the dataset's few co-assignee links. Its latest-year momentum reads at zero, consistent with a filer that established its architecture claims early and has since moved on to later-stage or unpublished work.

Largest cumulative filer in the ranking
Momentum
-75% YoY
NVIDIA, 6 records latest year

NVIDIA is still filing, but at a reduced rate

NVIDIA shows 6 records in the latest year against a 75% year-on-year drop — still active, unlike several peers that show zero, but clearly past whatever filing rate produced its historical share.

One of the few assignees still filing in the latest year
Stalled
-100% YoY
Intel, 0 records latest year

Intel and several historical leaders show no recent filings

Intel's latest-year count sits at zero, a 100% year-on-year drop, and the same is true of several other historically significant filers in this dataset. That does not necessarily mean disengagement from the technology — it is as consistent with a shift to filing under different search terms or classifications as with an actual pullback.

Zero latest-year activity across multiple historical leaders
🔍
Under-claimed branches worth a closer look
Sub-areas where filing density is thin relative to the core architecture claims
bioinformatics-parallel compute pipelinesbusiness-process workload scheduling on HPC fabricadaptive processor partitioning for I/O offloadcache-coherence protocols for heterogeneous diesimage-processing acceleration on supercomputer nodes
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
NVIDIA Corp6-75%
International Business Machine Corporation (IBM)0
Intel Corp0-100%
ICAT LLC0
Illumina Inc0
Global Supercomputing Corp0
Interactic Holdings LLC0
Sun Microsystems, Inc.0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Supercomputing Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next

Where to take this analysis

The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, white-space filing, or tracking a competitor's next move.

Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's portfolio

With 554 records concentrated in one assignee and dense IBM-affiliated co-filing, any new architecture claim touching processor partitioning, ASIC packaging density or messaging I/O should be checked against that body of prior art before drafting.

Run a freedom-to-operate search in Eureka

Draft toward the under-claimed branches

G16B and G06Q carry the thinnest overlap with the core supercomputing classes at 3.0% and 2.3% of records respectively, which is where a first claim is less likely to collide with dense prior art.

Explore white space in Eureka

Track the assignees still filing

NVIDIA's continued, if reduced, filing rate stands out against near-zero recent activity from historically larger filers, and is worth monitoring for where the next wave of claims will land.

Set up assignee monitoring in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Supercomputing Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about supercomputing patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Supercomputing Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Supercomputing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole supercomputing patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.