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 →36 families and 60 records on post-quantum zero-knowledge authentication, with filers split across 19 listed organisations and no single leader.
60 published records collapse into 36 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 2 of 60 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page tracks records matching a search for zero-knowledge proof (or zero knowledge proof) combined with post-quantum or quantum-resistant terms, together with authentication, across title, abstract and claims. The result is 36 simple patent families and 60 published records, with no date limit set on the query, so the set spans whatever years the matching text happens to appear in.
36 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, and the page is a starting point for further search rather than a map of who is active in post-quantum authentication.
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 (41 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 19 of the 19 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 19 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.
Counts are shown in the unit the evidence attaches to them, published records for the filing trend and receiving offices, simple patent families for the filer and technology breakdowns.
The series runs from 1 record in 2021 to a peak of 20 in 2025, with 14 recorded so far for 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still arriving as applications publish, so the most recent years understate their eventual count; no growth rate is shown here.
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.
H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 29 of the 36 families, 80.6%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 12 of the 36, 33.3%. Classes can overlap on a single family, so shares add to more than 100%; 22 subclasses were returned in total and the chart shows all of them.
Shares are the percentage of the 36 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 post-quantum zero-knowledge proof based authentication protocol patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA blockchain-based video authentication system ensures the integrity, authenticity, and security of digital video content by integrating cryptographic hashing, dynamic watermarking, AI-driven anomaly detection, and decentralized ledger storage. A video file is processed to generate a cryptographic hash, which is immutably stored in a blockchain ledger. A rotating digital watermark is embedded in the video to detect tampering. AI models, including convolutional and recurrent neural networks, analyze frames and motion patterns for manipulation.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. What the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, not inferred from this abstract.


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 the dataset, reported as counted, no ranking beyond what the counts themselves state.
The search returns 36 simple patent families and 60 published records. The difference reflects the same invention appearing in more than one publication or jurisdiction; no date limit was applied to the search string.
Netarx LLC, Vardhaman College of Engineering, and Credenta Technologies Pte Ltd are each named on 2 of the 36 simple patent families, the highest count in the listed filers. The remaining 19 listed filers each hold 2 or fewer families; filer rows are not summed here because one family can name more than one filer.
H04L (digital information transmission) is present on 29 of the 36 simple patent families, 80.6%; G06F (electric digital data processing) is present on 12, 33.3%. A family can carry both classes, so the two shares are not mutually exclusive and do not sum to a combined coverage figure.
At retrieval, 2 of the 60 published records (3%) were granted and still in force. The remainder fall into pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable status, which are not broken out separately in this dataset.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to post-quantum zero-knowledge proof based authentication protocol patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures above describe what one search string returned. Narrowing or widening that string, or reading specific claim sets, is the next step for any decision that depends on scope.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what any single filing covers. For records that matter to a filing or freedom-to-operate question, pull the granted claim set.
Open Patsnap Eureka →A 36-family pool this size is sensitive to the exact wording of the search string. Variants on post-quantum, lattice-based, or specific ZK proof-system terms may surface records this string missed.
Open Patsnap Eureka →This particular search returns 36 simple patent families and 60 published records, with no date limit applied to the query. The family count de-duplicates the same invention across countries, while the record count is one entry per publication, so the two numbers measure different things. Because the search string is specific, a different combination of terms (lattice-based, ZK-SNARK, quantum-resistant signature, and similar) could return a different set, so this figure should be read as the output of one query rather than a definitive count for the topic.
The listed filers are spread thin: three organisations, Netarx LLC, Vardhaman College of Engineering, and Credenta Technologies Pte Ltd, each hold 2 of the 36 simple patent families, the highest count among the 19 listed filers. The remaining listed filers each hold 2 or fewer families apiece. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and individual inventors are excluded from this list but remain in the totals, so no single-row share should be read as a measure of overall concentration.
Of the 36 simple patent families, 29 (80.6%) carry the IPC subclass H04L, covering digital information transmission, and 12 (33.3%) carry G06F, covering electric digital data processing. A family can carry both classes at once, which is why the two shares add to more than 100%. The dataset returned 22 subclasses in total; the two above are the only ones large enough on this page to characterise with any confidence.
At the retrieval date of 2026-10-16, 2 of the 60 published records (3%) were granted and still in force. The rest are in pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable status, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further. In-force status is a snapshot that changes continuously as applications prosecute or lapse, and it is not a measure of a filing's quality or value.
The published-record trend runs from 1 in 2021 to a peak of 20 in 2025, with 14 recorded so far for 2026, but no growth rate can be stated from this data. Recent years are still filling in as applications publish, typically an 18 to 30 month lag, so 2022 onward understates its eventual count and any apparent slowdown in the latest years is an artefact of that lag, not a real decline. The series also counts published records rather than distinct inventions, so a rising count can reflect the same invention being filed in more jurisdictions rather than more inventions being created.
The search returned 12 receiving offices in total. The largest named offices are India with 23 published records, WIPO (PCT) with 10, the United States with 8, Canada with 4, and Australia and Europe (EPO) with 3 each. These figures count records, not families, and one invention can appear against more than one office, so they should not be read as a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction split of the 36 families.
Go past this page: query the whole post-quantum zero-knowledge proof based authentication protocol 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:(("zero-knowledge proof" OR "zero knowledge proof") AND ("post-quantum" OR "quantum-resistant") AND authentication)
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 (H04L) carries 80.6% 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 60 records and 36 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 (41 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 19 of the 19 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 19 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 60). 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.
This page