https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/gkp-bosonic-code-quantum-error-correction-implementation-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Quantum Technologies · Patent Snapshot

GKP Bosonic Code Quantum Error Correction Patents

A small dataset of 6 patent families on GKP bosonic code error correction, with filings split across three receiving offices.

14
Published Records
6
Simple Patent Families
50%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

14 published records collapse into 6 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 7 of 14 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 6 simple patent families and 14 published records make up this dataset, with no single filer ahead of the rest.
  • Two filers share the top count Amazon Tech Inc and University of Chicago are each named on 2 of the 6 families.
  • Filings split across three receiving offices United States carries 9 of the 14 published records, WIPO (PCT) 4, and Japan 1.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This search pulls records matching GKP code, Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill code or grid state code terms alongside error correction or bosonic qubit language in the title, abstract or claims. It returns 14 published records that de-duplicate down to 6 simple patent families. No date filter was applied, so the set spans whatever filing dates the matching records happen to carry.

Six families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, treat this page as a starting point for a deeper search rather than a map of who is active in bosonic error correction.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. AMAZON TECH INC2
  2. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO2
  3. MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH1
  4. UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN1
  5. NIPPON TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE CORP1

Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified; that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 5 of the 5 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 5 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for GKP Bosonic Code Quantum Error Correction Implementation Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
Data

Filing activity and technology split

The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing-trend chart counted in published records, and a technology breakdown counted in simple patent families.

Filing trend by earliest filing year

Records are counted by earliest filing year, peaking so far at 8 in 2021. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later publications arrive, so the shaded recent stretch should not be read as a drop in filing.

Filing trend by earliest filing year0246832020820212022202320242025020262022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 5 of the 5 families (83.3%), with G06F (electric digital data processing) and H10D (semiconductor devices, general) each on 1 of 6 (16.7%). A family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add up past 100%.

Technology composition by IPC subclassG06N · Computing based on AI models583.3%G06F · Electric digital data processi…116.7%H10D · Semiconductor devices (general)116.7%

Shares are the percentage of the 6 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for GKP Bosonic Code Quantum Error Correction Implementation Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on GKP Bosonic Code Quantum Error Correction Implementation Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about gkp bosonic code quantum error correction implementation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in Focus

A record from the result set

As returned by the search
US11599820B12023-03-07

Fault-tolerant quantum error correction with a surface GKP code

AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

A fault tolerant quantum error correction protocol is implemented for a surface code comprising Gottesman Kitaev Preskill (GKP) qubits. Analog information is determined when measuring position or momentum shifts, wherein the analog information indicates a closeness of the shift to a decision boundary. The analog information may further be used to determine confidence values for error corrected measurements from the GKP qubits of the surface code.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citation, novelty or scope. Its granted claims, not this abstract, define what it actually covers.

US11599820B1, patent drawing 1US11599820B1, patent drawing 2
View record US11599820B1

Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for GKP Bosonic Code Quantum Error Correction Implementation Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move 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 figures show

Three readings of the same small dataset, each tied to a figure in the evidence rather than to a judgement about the field.

Filer tie
2 families each
top count, simple patent families

Two filers share the top count

Amazon Tech Inc and University of Chicago are each named on 2 of the 6 simple patent families in scope. No single filer in the listed set is named on more than these two.

Counted in simple patent families, not records.
Receiving offices
9 / 4 / 1
published records by office

Three receiving offices appear in the data

Of the 14 published records, 9 were filed at the United States office, 4 through WIPO (PCT), and 1 at the Japan office. This describes where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.

All three offices returned by the search are counted here.
Legal status
7 of 14
records granted and in force

Half the records are in force at retrieval

7 of the 14 published records were granted and remained in force at the 2026-10-20 retrieval date. The remaining records fall into other statuses that are not broken out in this dataset.

Status is a snapshot, not a quality measure.
Technology split
83.3%
families carrying G06N

G06N carries the highest share of the technology split

G06N (computing based on AI models) is carried by 5 of the 5 simple patent families (83.3%). G06F and H10D each appear on 1 of 6 families (16.7%). Families can carry more than one subclass, so the shares do not need to sum to 100%.

Share is of the 6 families in scope, not of records.
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 gkp bosonic code quantum error correction implementation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for GKP Bosonic Code Quantum Error Correction Implementation Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next

Where to take this from here

A 6-family pool is a starting point, not a finished picture. These next steps help widen or verify what this search surfaced.

Broaden the search terms

Bosonic error-correction filings may use different phrasing than the GKP-specific terms used here, so a wider term set could surface families this search did not catch.

Explore broader queries in Eureka

Pull the granted claims directly

This page reports abstracts and counts only. Anyone assessing freedom-to-operate or overlap needs to read the granted claim sets of the relevant families themselves.

Review full claim sets in Eureka

Check filer rows individually

Because filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and can overlap across families, any further analysis should treat each listed row on its own rather than combining them.

Trace filer-level detail in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for GKP Bosonic Code Quantum Error Correction Implementation Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Questions practitioners ask about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for GKP Bosonic Code Quantum Error Correction Implementation Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research GKP Bosonic Code Quantum Error Correction Implementation Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole gkp bosonic code quantum error correction implementation patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean

Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:

TAC:(("GKP code" OR "Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill code" OR "grid state code") AND ("error correction" OR "bosonic qubit"))

Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field. One subclass (G06N) carries 83.3% of the patent families, so this search returned a classification-tight set.

What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 14 records and 6 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.

Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list. Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 5 of the 5 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 5 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included

Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-20.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (7 of 14). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka

Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level

Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.

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 limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. 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, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records 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.

The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.

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.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.