https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/mobile-application-code-virtualization-obfuscation-protection-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-16 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Cybersecurity & Digital Trust

Mobile Application Code Virtualization & Obfuscation Protection Patents

12 patent families cover mobile app code virtualization and obfuscation protection, with no single filer ahead of a 9-way tie at the top.

24
Published Records
12
Simple Patent Families
8%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

24 published records collapse into 12 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 2 of 24 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 12 simple patent families and 24 published records sit in scope here, with no date limit set by the search string.
  • Nine filers are listed in the ranking, but the top spot is a 9-way tie at 1 family each, and all 9 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families, so no single filer stands out by count.
  • G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on the highest share of families, at 41.7% of the 12 simple patent families in scope.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This dataset gathers patent records matching mobile application or mobile app terms combined with virtualization or virtual machine protection language, and obfuscation or protection terms in the same record. The search string carries no date limit, so the 12 simple patent families and 24 published records in scope represent every matching record the database holds, not a fixed recent span. G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on the highest share of families, at 41.7% of the 12 in scope.

With only 12 simple patent families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a further search rather than a complete map of mobile application virtualization and obfuscation protection filings.

Families, records and technology mix at a glance
  1. EMC IP HLDG CO LLC1
  2. INSET INC1
  3. PROF SANTOSH GOPAL NAGPURE DEPT OF ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM ENG1
  4. PROF MANAV ASHOK THAKUR DETP OF CSE1
  5. PRIVACY SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD1
  6. ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES GMBH1
  7. ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM RES INST1
  8. RUBEAN AG1
  9. DR S V S RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU PROFESSOR DEPT OF ECE1

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 (13 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 9 of the 9 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 9 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 Mobile Application Code Virtualization Obfuscation Protection Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. 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
The numbers

Records, families and filing activity

This dataset holds 24 published records across 12 simple patent families, with no date limit set by the search string.

Filing trend by earliest filing year

Counted in published records (not de-duplicated families), running from 1 record in 2009 to a peak of 9 in 2018, with 2022 onward still filling in due to publication lag.

Filing trend by earliest filing year0358101200920112013201520179201920212023202512022 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

G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 41.7% of the 12 simple patent families, the highest share here, followed by G06Q at 33.3% and H04L at 25.0%; a family can carry more than one subclass, so shares add past 100%.

Technology composition by IPC subclassG06F · Electric digital data processi…541.7%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…433.3%H04L · Digital information transmissi…325.0%H04M · Telephonic communication216.7%A61B · Diagnosis & surgery18.3%A63F · Games & amusements18.3%B64C · Aeroplanes & helicopters18.3%B64D · Aircraft equipment18.3%Other1191.7%

Shares are the percentage of the 12 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 Mobile Application Code Virtualization Obfuscation Protection Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Mobile Application Code Virtualization Obfuscation Protection Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about mobile application code virtualization obfuscation protection patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
A record from the result set

What one record in this set actually claims

First record returned, database default order
US9807165B12017-10-31

Unified and secured enterprise mobility platform

EMC IP HOLDING COMPANY LLC

US9807165B1 describes a method of implementing a mobile device management component, a mobile application management component, a file syncing component and a file sharing component on a unified platform, and managing interactions between at least two of them. The abstract further describes a mobile analytics component, a mobile security component and a mobile application container on the same platform.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. An abstract and a family count describe what a filing discusses; what its granted claims require has to be read from the claim set itself.

US9807165B1, patent drawing 1US9807165B1, patent drawing 2
Open this record in Eureka

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 Mobile Application Code Virtualization Obfuscation Protection Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. 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 →
Reading the dataset

What the figures show

These cards report figures taken directly from the dataset. They describe counts, not rankings of quality or strategy.

Scope
12 families / 24 records
simple patent families / published records

A small, undated pool

The search string carries no date limit, so these 12 simple patent families and 24 published records represent every matching record the database holds for the terms used, not a bounded recent window.

Counted at retrieval on 2026-10-16.
Filer distribution
9 of 9 filers on ≤2 families
simple patent families per listed filer

A tie at the top, a flat tail

Nine organisations are listed in the filer ranking. The top count is shared by several filers at 1 family each, including EMC IP HLDG CO LLC, and all 9 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows can overlap and are never added together into a combined share on this page.

Individuals are excluded from the filer list but remain in the totals.
Technology mix
41.7% G06F
share of 12 simple patent families

G06F carries the highest share

G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 41.7% of the 12 simple patent families in scope, ahead of G06Q at 33.3% and H04L at 25.0%. A family can carry more than one IPC subclass, so these shares sum to more than 100%.

19 subclasses appear in total; only the largest few are discussed here.
Legal status
2 of 24 (8%)
published records granted and in force

A small in-force slice at one point in time

2 of the 24 published records (8%) were granted and in force at the 2026-10-16 retrieval date. The remaining records carry other statuses that are not broken out separately in this dataset.

Status is a snapshot, not a fixed outcome.
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 mobile application code virtualization obfuscation protection 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 Mobile Application Code Virtualization Obfuscation Protection Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this from here

These figures describe one search run on one day. Refining the terms, checking receiving offices, or pulling the full claim sets are reasonable next moves before drawing conclusions.

Read the granted claims directly

An abstract and a family count cannot establish what a patent's claims require. Pull the granted claim set for any record that matters to a design decision.

Open records in Eureka

Check filer rows individually

Filer rows overlap and are not rolled up to corporate group. Review each row's family count on its own rather than combining rows that look related.

Browse the filer list in Eureka

Revisit the search terms

A pool this size is sensitive to the exact wording of the search string. Broadening or narrowing the terms may surface a different set of families.

Refine the search 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 Mobile Application Code Virtualization Obfuscation Protection Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Questions practitioners ask

Frequently asked questions

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Mobile Application Code Virtualization Obfuscation Protection Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Mobile Application Code Virtualization Obfuscation Protection Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole mobile application code virtualization obfuscation protection 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:(("mobile application" OR "mobile app") AND (virtualiz* OR "virtual machine protection") AND (obfuscat* OR protect*))

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.

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 24 records and 12 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 (13 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 9 of the 9 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 9 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 2026-10-16.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (2 of 24). 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.

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.