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 2-family patent set on Grover's algorithm for unstructured database search, covering filers, IPC spread and a sample claim.
2 published records collapse into 2 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country.
This page covers records matching Grover's algorithm or amplitude amplification combined with database search or unstructured search language, alongside a quantum computer or quantum algorithm term. The search string sets no date limit, so the result is whatever currently matches those terms across the indexed record set, not a fixed historical span. G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on both families in scope.
Only 2 simple patent families and 2 published records match this search string. That is too small a pool to support any conclusion about concentration, trend or white space, treat this page as a starting point for a more targeted search, not as a map of the field.
Counted over all 2 published records, including filings from before 2024; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 1 records from 2024 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. 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. 2 rows in this table share the name RUNGTA (RUNGTA COLLEGE OF SCI & TECH DURG, DR SAKET RUNGTA). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (1 here); 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 3 of the 3 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 3 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 2 simple patent families and 2 published records returned by this search string.
The series shown runs from 2024, the highest year in this window, to 2026 at 0. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so recent years understate eventual counts, and at least 1 record filed before this window sits outside the chart entirely.
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. This chart covers 2024-2026 (1 records); the 2 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2024 is the highest year shown, but it is also the first year in the window: earlier filings sit outside this chart, so this is not necessarily the historical peak.
G06N covers both of the 2 families in scope (100.0%). B82Y, G06F, G06Q and H01L each appear on 1 family (50.0%). Because a single family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100% and should be read one subclass at a time.
Shares are the percentage of the 2 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 grover search algorithm implementation for unstructured database query patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaAn area detection unit detects an area for executing database search from source code written in C++. A processing time estimation unit estimates the processing time using conventional logical calculation versus quantum calculation based on the Grover search algorithm in that area. Where the quantum route is estimated shorter, a replacement unit substitutes the corresponding Grover-search C++ code, producing a source code in which the portion suited to quantum calculation has been replaced.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in scope. Nothing about its position in the result list indicates importance.


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 figures from this result set, reported without ranking or interpretation beyond what the count itself shows.
The search string returned 2 simple patent families and 2 published records, with no date limit applied. This is too few documents to read a trend, a concentration pattern or a technology split with confidence.
Rungta College of Sci & Tech Durg, Dr Saket Rungta, and Nara Institute of Science and Technology are each named on 1 of the 2 families. Two of these rows share the same surname but are listed separately and are not summed here, since one family can name several filers.
Both families in scope carry a G06N classification. B82Y, G06F, G06Q and H01L each appear on 1 of the 2 families (50.0%); because one family can carry multiple classes, these percentages do not sum to 100%.
The 2 published records in scope were filed through 2 receiving offices: India (1 record) and WIPO under the PCT (1 record). This reflects where applications entered the system, not where any filer is based.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to grover search algorithm implementation for unstructured database query patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports what one search string returns. Refining the query or reading full claim sets is the next step for anyone acting on it.
An abstract and a family count cannot establish what a patent's claims cover. Pull the full claim set for any record before drawing a freedom-to-operate conclusion.
Open the full recordWith only 2 families in scope, adjacent phrasing around amplitude amplification or quantum search could surface records this string misses.
Refine the search in EurekaThis specific search string returns 2 simple patent families and 2 published records, with no date limit applied. That is a narrow result tied to the exact phrasing used (Grover's algorithm or amplitude amplification, combined with database search or unstructured search, combined with a quantum computer or quantum algorithm term). A differently worded search against the same underlying documents could return a different count, so this figure should be read as specific to this query rather than as a total count of quantum database-search patents anywhere.
Three filers are tied at the top of this result set, each named on 1 of the 2 simple patent families: Rungta College of Sci & Tech Durg, Dr Saket Rungta, and Nara Institute of Science and Technology. Two of those rows share a surname but are listed separately in the data and are not added together here, because a single family can name more than one filer and summing them would overstate the count. With only 2 families total, this is too small a set to identify a broader filing pattern among organisations.
The abstract for WO2006061926A1 describes a program development support device that detects a database-search region in C++ source code, estimates the processing time for that region under conventional logic versus Grover-algorithm quantum calculation, and automatically substitutes quantum-algorithm code where it is estimated faster. That description tells you what the abstract discusses, not what the granted claims legally require. Claim scope has to be read from the granted claim set itself, since an abstract and a family count cannot establish infringement or freedom-to-operate outcomes.
This page does not show a growth rate for this topic; the dataset is too thin and the recent years too incomplete to compute one reliably. The filing trend available here runs from 2024, the highest year shown in the chart's window, down to 2026 at 0 published records, but records filed since 2022 are still filling in as later applications publish. No trajectory, acceleration or slowdown should be read from a handful of documents moving year to year.
The 2 published records in this result set were filed through 2 receiving offices: India, with 1 record, and WIPO under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, with 1 record. This reflects the office each application was filed through, not the nationality or location of any filer; the dataset does not include filer nationality or country information at all. With only 2 records, this cannot be read as a broader filing-geography pattern.
Go past this page: query the whole grover search algorithm implementation for unstructured database query 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:(("Grover" OR "Grover's algorithm" OR "amplitude amplification") AND ("database search" OR "unstructured search") AND ("quantum computer" OR "quantum algorithm"))
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 100.0% 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 2 records and 2 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 (1 of them here). 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 3 of the 3 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 3 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. Legal status was not available for this search, so no in-force figure is shown. 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.
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