Superconducting Quantum Computing Patents: Top Leaders 2026
- Filing peaked in 2021 at 169 records and has since declined toward 12 in the most recent (partial) year — a maturing claim landscape, not a growing one.
- Every tracked leading assignee shows -100% YoY in the latest year, including IBM, Google, Intel, D-Wave, Rigetti and IQM — a pattern consistent with publication lag rather than a sudden exit.
- IBM's cross-border filing pairs dominate co-assignment with its UK and Germany IP units, showing how the leader coordinates protection across jurisdictions rather than relying on a single filing.
What the filing record shows
Superconducting quantum computing hardware sits at the intersection of qubit control, cryogenics and error correction, and the patent record reflects that spread: 1,224 families published between 2015 and mid-2026 span IPC classes from computing architectures (G06N) through solid-state devices (H10N), semiconductor fabrication (H01L) and pulse/logic circuitry (H03K). The bulk of claim activity sits in G06N, but a meaningful share of families also touch nanotechnology (B82Y) and coding schemes (H03M), pointing to a field where hardware, control software and error-correction logic are claimed together rather than separately.
Filing rose steadily from 34 records in 2017 to a peak of 169 in 2021, then declined through the 2022 midpoint of 140 toward single digits by 2026. Because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, the last one to two years understate real activity, but the multi-year decline from peak predates that lag and looks like a genuine cooling of new claim volume rather than a data artefact.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,224-family dataset: the year-by-year filing curve, and how those families distribute across IPC subclasses.
A decade of filing activity, now past its peak
Annual filings climbed from 34 in 2017 to a peak of 169 in 2021, held near that level through the 2022 midpoint (140), then fell sharply toward 12 by 2026. Read the final one to two years with caution given publication lag, but the multi-year downward slope from 2021 is too large to attribute to lag alone.
Claim density concentrates in computing architecture, spreads into materials and circuits
G06N (AI-linked computing) carries the largest share of records at 1,182, far ahead of H10N solid-state devices (299), G06F data processing (273), H01L semiconductor devices (224) and B82Y nanotechnology (208). Smaller but non-trivial activity in H03K pulse/logic circuits (143) and H03M coding (45) shows error-correction and signal-processing claims are a distinct, thinner layer on top of the core hardware filings.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,224 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Superconducting Quantum Computing Hardware with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about superconducting quantum computing hardware and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records anchor the design space
Trapped ion architecture in a dilution refrigerator for use with superconducting qubit systems
A quantum computing system includes a dilution refrigerator having a plurality of chambers. A trapped ion computing device includes a first set of qubits in a given chamber of the plurality of chambers of the dilution refrigerator. A superconducting computing device having a second set of superconducting qubits is inside the given chamber of the plurality of chambers of the dilution refrigerator.Filed by International Business Machines Corporation, granted 2024-06-25.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20160267032A1 | Processing Signals in a Quantum Computing System | 335 |
| 2 | US7876248B2 | Systems, methods and apparatus for local programming of quantum processor elements | 290 |
| 3 | US8195596B2 | Systems, devices, and methods for interconnected processor topology | 284 |
| 4 | US8035540B2 | Systems, methods and apparatus for local programming of quantum processor elements | 234 |
| 5 | US20080176750A1 | Systems, devices, and methods for interconnected processor topology | 231 |
| 6 | US20180260732A1 | Performing a Calibration Process in a Quantum Computing System | 196 |
| 7 | US20180260245A1 | Event Scheduling in a Hybrid Computing System | 183 |
| 8 | US8018244B2 | Architecture for local programming of quantum processor elements using latching qubits | 170 |
| 9 | US8560282B2 | Quantum processor-based systems, methods and apparatus for solving problems as logic circuits | 163 |
| 10 | US20160125311A1 | Apparatus and method for quantum processing | 151 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations; treat them as a signal of influence on the field's vocabulary, not of current commercial 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 mean for a filing decision
Three patterns worth acting on before drafting new claims in this space.
Claim space is being consolidated, not expanded
The sharp decline from the 2021 peak, even accounting for publication lag, suggests the core architectural claims for superconducting qubit control and readout have largely been staked out. New filers are more likely to be competing on narrower improvements than on foundational architecture.
Error-correction coding is thin relative to core hardware
H03M (coding and code conversion) carries only 45 records against 1,182 in G06N, meaning error-correction and decoding schemes remain a comparatively open layer even where the underlying qubit and control hardware is densely claimed.
Protection strategy still centres on the US
United States filings outnumber PCT applications by nearly three to one, with Europe a distant second at 223. Entities filing only through national European or Asia-Pacific routes may be under-protected relative to those anchoring in the US first.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to superconducting quantum computing hardware, 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 DEUTSCHLAND GMBH | 18 |
| New South Innovations Pty Limited | The University of Melbourne | 9 |
| RIGETTI & CO INC | President and Fellows of Harvard College | 6 |
| New South Innovations Pty Limited | UNIV OF MELBOURNE SCHOOL OF PHYSICS | 6 |
| D-Wave Systems Inc. | BERKLEY ANDREW J | 5 |
| D-Wave Systems Inc. | HARRIS RICHARD G | 4 |
| RIGETTI & CO INC | RIGETTI AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | 3 |
IBM's strongest co-assignee pairings are with its own UK and Germany intellectual-property units (19 and 18 joint filings respectively), showing a single applicant coordinating protection across jurisdictions rather than independent co-invention between separate companies.
Who holds the claim space
A small group of assignees — spanning established computing firms and dedicated quantum-hardware entrants — account for the bulk of filings, with every one of them showing zero filings in the latest tracked year.
A uniform pullback, likely lag-driven
IBM, Google, Intel, D-Wave, Rigetti and IQM Finland all show zero filings in the most recent year and -100% year-on-year change. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this reads more as a reporting gap than a synchronised exit from the field.
Co-filing is limited and mostly intra-corporate
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset. The strongest involve IBM's own regional IP entities rather than joint ventures between separate companies, with one academic pairing between New South Innovations and the University of Melbourne standing out as genuine cross-institution collaboration.
Secondary markets are thin
Australia, Canada and India each carry well under a tenth of the US filing volume, meaning enforcement and freedom-to-operate positions in those markets rest on comparatively few families.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) | 0 | -100% |
| RIGETTI & CO INC | 0 | -100% |
| D-Wave Systems Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Google LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Intel Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| IQM Finland Oy | 0 | -100% |
| 1372934 B C LTD | 0 | -100% |
| Quantinuum LLC | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific follow-up questions depending on whether you are drafting, licensing or monitoring competitors.
Check freedom-to-operate against the most-cited families
The five most-cited records, several from IBM's earlier processor-topology filings, define much of the vocabulary later applicants build on. Any new architecture claim should be checked against them first.
Explore prior art in EurekaTrack the lag-corrected filing curve before concluding the field has cooled
The apparent drop after 2021 partly reflects publication lag. Re-run the trend once another 12-18 months of data lands before assuming filers have withdrawn.
Set up monitoring in EurekaDraft around the thin H03M coding layer
Error-correction and decoding claims are comparatively sparse next to core hardware claims, making this a more open area for new filings than qubit architecture itself.
Draft with EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The dataset's most-cited records trace back to IBM's earlier processor-topology and qubit-programming filings, and IBM also shows the strongest co-assignee coordination through its UK and Germany intellectual-property units. Other frequently tracked names include Google, Intel, D-Wave and Rigetti, alongside dedicated quantum entrants like IQM Finland. All of these leading assignees show zero filings in the most recent tracked year, which is consistent with an 18-month publication lag rather than a genuine stop in filing.
No — filings rose from 34 in 2017 to a peak of 169 in 2021, held near that level through 2022 at 140, then declined sharply toward 12 by 2026. Some of the most recent drop is a publication-lag artefact, since patents typically appear in the record about 18 months after filing. But the multi-year decline starting well before the lag window suggests genuine cooling in new architectural claims, even as narrower improvement filings likely continue.
G06N, the computing-architecture class most associated with AI and quantum computing models, dominates with 1,182 of 1,224 records touching it. H10N solid-state devices, G06F data processing and H01L semiconductor devices follow at a distance, with B82Y nanotechnology and H03K pulse/logic circuits rounding out the core. H03M coding and code conversion is comparatively thin at 45 records, marking it as one of the less densely claimed adjacent layers.
Error-correction decoding circuitry (H03M) and crosstalk-suppression readout schemes both show markedly lower filing density than the core qubit and control hardware classes. Hybrid architectures combining trapped-ion and superconducting qubits within a single dilution-refrigerator chamber, as described in IBM's 2024 representative patent, also remain a comparatively narrow filing area. These are reasonable starting points for new claim drafting, though any filing should still be checked against the most-cited prior art in the corpus first.
US12020115B2, granted to IBM in June 2024, claims a dilution refrigerator with multiple chambers where one chamber houses both a trapped-ion qubit set and a superconducting qubit set. It is specific to co-locating both qubit modalities within the same physical chamber of a shared refrigerator. Designs that keep trapped-ion and superconducting systems in separate chambers, separate refrigerators, or use a different physical integration approach would need a freedom-to-operate review but are not automatically blocked by this claim's specific chamber-sharing limitation.
Research Superconducting Quantum Computing Hardware in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole superconducting quantum computing hardware 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.