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 →A small dataset of 6 patent families on GKP bosonic code error correction, with filings split across three receiving offices.
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 In force = 7 of 14 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
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.
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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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%.
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 EurekaA 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.


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.
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 →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 →Three readings of the same small dataset, each tied to a figure in the evidence rather than to a judgement about the field.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
A 6-family pool is a starting point, not a finished picture. These next steps help widen or verify what this search surfaced.
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 EurekaThis 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 EurekaBecause 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 EurekaThis search returns 14 published records that de-duplicate to 6 simple patent families. A simple family groups together all the national and PCT filings for the same invention, while the published-record count treats each publication separately. Because the search string targets specific terms like GKP code and Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill code, it may miss filings that describe the same technology using different language, so this figure should be read as what this particular query returned rather than a count of everything filed in this space.
The listed filers returned by this search include Amazon Tech Inc, University of Chicago, Massachusetts Inst of Tech, University of Copenhagen and Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp, with Amazon Tech Inc and University of Chicago each named on 2 of the 6 simple patent families. This is not a complete list of every organisation active in the space, only the organisations that appear in this search's results after individual-named filings were removed. Because filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, any subsidiaries or related entities of these names would appear as separate rows rather than being combined here.
GKP refers to the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill bosonic code, a way of encoding a qubit into the continuous states of a harmonic oscillator using a grid-like structure in phase space, so that small shifts in position or momentum can be detected and corrected. The featured record in this dataset, US11599820B1, describes applying such a code within a surface-code error correction protocol and using analog shift measurements to build confidence values for corrected outcomes. What any specific patent's granted claims require has to be read from the claim text itself, not inferred from this description.
This dataset does not support a growth reading. The filing trend shown here counts published records by earliest filing year and peaks so far at 8 records in 2021, but years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later publications continue to be filed and indexed, with the most recent years understated by design. With only a handful of records across any given year, year-to-year movement in a set this size is not a reliable basis for a trend conclusion.
Of the 14 published records in this dataset, 9 were filed at the United States receiving office, 4 through the WIPO PCT route, and 1 at the Japan office. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is headquartered or based, since this dataset provides no nationality or country information about any of the filers themselves. A PCT filing under WIPO can later enter national phase in other jurisdictions not separately counted here.
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.
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.
This page