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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/private-set-intersection-protocol-implementation-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Cybersecurity & Digital TrustPrivate Set Intersection Protocol Patents
306 simple patent families and 774 published records cover private set intersection protocol filings, with filings spread across a long tail of filers.
774
Published Records
306
Simple Patent Families
5%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
30%
In Force at Cut-off
774 published records collapse into 306 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. QUALCOMM INC is named on 15 of the 306 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 234 of 774 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 306 simple patent families and 774 published records make up this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
- QUALCOMM INC holds the largest single filer row named on 15 of the 306 families (4.9%), ahead of a long tail where 67 of the 88 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
- H04W and H04L each cover around a third of families 32.0% and 31.4% of the 306 simple patent families respectively, with G06F at 17.3%.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This landscape is built from a search for "private set intersection" or PSI combined with protocol and either implementation or a computing term, matched against titles, abstracts and claims. It returns 306 simple patent families, de-duplicated across countries, and 774 published records counting each national or regional publication separately. The search string carries no date restriction, so this is every matching record the database holds, not a window chosen in advance.
Of the 774 records, 234 (30%) were granted and still in force at retrieval. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed, or not determinable from the record, and that breakdown is not separated further here.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 774 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 645 records from 2007 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. 4 rows in this table start with the same name (NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY, NOKIA CORP, NOKIA SOLUTIONS & NETWORKS OY, and others). 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 (12 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 30 of the 88 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 88 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 Private Set Intersection Protocol Implementation Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data
Filing activity and technology split
Two views of the same 306 families: when the underlying inventions were filed, and which IPC subclasses their claims touch.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (645 of 774 published records)
Published records run from 47 in 2007 to a peak of 87 in 2024, counted by earliest filing year. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filing applications publish, so the most recent years understate eventual totals; this is a count of published documents, not of distinct inventions, since one invention can publish more than once.
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 2007-2026 (645 records); the 774 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass composition
H04W (wireless communication networks) appears on 32.0% of the 306 families, H04L (digital information transmission) on 31.4%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 17.3%. A family can carry more than one of these classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 306 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 Private Set Intersection Protocol Implementation Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Private Set Intersection Protocol Implementation Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about private set intersection protocol implementation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaExample Filing
A record from the result set
From the search results
Secure multiparty detection of sensitive data using Private Set Intersection (PSI)
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
A method, apparatus and computer program product to detect whether specific sensitive data of a client is present in a cloud computing infrastructure is implemented without requiring that data be shared with the cloud provider, or that the cloud provider provide the client access to all data in the cloud. Instead of requiring the client to share its database of sensitive information, the client executes a tool that uses a cryptographic protocol, namely, Private Set Intersection (PSI), to enable the client to detect whether their sensitive information is present on the cloud.This is the first record returned by the database's default ordering, not the most cited or the broadest filing in the set. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, which this page does not reproduce.
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 Private Set Intersection Protocol Implementation Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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
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 numbers
What the figures show
Three figures worth sitting with before filing a search of your own in this space.
Largest single filer row
15 / 306 (4.9%)
families named
QUALCOMM INC named on 15 of 306 families
QUALCOMM INC is named on 15 of the 306 simple patent families in scope, a 4.9% share. This is a count of named families on a filer row, not a claim-scope or enforceability measure, and names are not rolled up to corporate group on this list.
Largest single filer row in the listed set.
Long tail
67 / 88
filers with 2 or fewer families
67 of 88 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families
Of the 88 listed filers returned by the search, 67 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows as a group sum to 73% of the 306 families in scope, but that figure double-counts families naming more than one filer and is not a concentration measure.
Counted across the 88 listed organisation filers.
Technology split
32.0% / 31.4% / 17.3%
share of 306 families
H04W, H04L and G06F carry the largest IPC shares
H04W (wireless communication networks) sits on 32.0% of the 306 families, H04L (digital information transmission) on 31.4%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 17.3%. Because a family can carry multiple IPC subclasses, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive groupings.
Shares computed against the 306-family total; subclasses overlap.
Legal status
234 / 774 (30%)
records in force
30% of records were granted and in force at retrieval
234 of the 774 published records were granted and still in force at the point of retrieval. The remaining 70% spans pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable statuses that are not broken out individually, so this figure describes legal status on a specific date, not a success rate.
Status snapshot dated 2026-10-15.
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 private set intersection protocol implementation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Private Set Intersection Protocol Implementation Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps
Taking this further
The figures above describe what this search returned. Narrowing the query or pulling specific claim sets is the next step for any of these threads.
Pull the granted claims on named rows
Family and filer counts show where filings sit, not what any claim set requires. Reading the granted claims directly is the only way to assess scope for a specific row.
Explore filers in EurekaRe-run with a narrower string
A broad OR-based search string catches adjacent fields along with the core topic. Tightening the query can separate genuine PSI protocol filings from incidental matches.
Build a custom search in EurekaTrack the filling-in window
Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing. Revisiting the trend after more publications land will give a fuller picture of recent filing activity.
Set up trend tracking in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Private Set Intersection Protocol Implementation Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions
This search returns 306 simple patent families, each representing one de-duplicated invention, and 774 published records counting every national and regional publication of those inventions separately. The search string combines "private set intersection" or PSI with protocol and either implementation or a computing term, matched against titles, abstracts and claims, and it carries no date restriction. A different search string targeting the same technology could return a different count, since the result depends on exactly which terms are matched.
QUALCOMM INC is named on 15 of the 306 simple patent families in scope, the largest single filer row in the listed set, a 4.9% share. Several other rows beginning with the same company name (for example, four rows starting with Nokia, and two each starting with Samsung and Electronics & Telecomm Res Inst) are listed separately and are not added together here, since one family can name more than one filer. The filer list returned 88 organisation-only entities in total, and the table on the page shows only the 30 largest.
67 of the 88 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each, which is the clearest sign of how spread out this field is. The listed rows sum to 73% of the 306 families in scope, but that figure cannot be read as a concentration share because filer rows overlap, a single family can name multiple filers, so adding rows together double-counts. Individual inventors are also excluded from the filer list itself, though their filings remain inside the 306-family and 774-record totals.
Measured against the 306 families in scope, H04W (wireless communication networks) appears on 32.0%, H04L (digital information transmission) on 31.4%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 17.3%. Because a family can carry more than one IPC subclass, these shares add up to more than 100% rather than partitioning the dataset. The search returned 90 subclasses in total; only the largest few carry a share worth discussing in detail here.
The filing trend, counted in published records by earliest filing year, runs from 47 records in 2007 to a peak of 87 in 2024. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as later publications land, publication lag means recent years are understated and should not be read as a drop-off. This series counts published documents rather than distinct inventions, so a rising or falling line can reflect filing-location choices as much as the number of underlying inventions, and the dataset here is not large enough to support a growth-rate claim.
234 of the 774 published records (30%) were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remaining 70% covers pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable statuses that are not broken out individually on this page. Legal status changes continuously, so this figure is a snapshot rather than a measure of how successful filings in this space tend to be.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Private Set Intersection Protocol Implementation Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Private Set Intersection Protocol Implementation Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole private set intersection protocol implementation patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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:(("private set intersection" OR PSI) AND protocol AND (implementation OR comput*))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. No subclass carries much of this set: the most common one is on 32.0% of the patent families and the set spans 90 subclasses in all. That can mean the technology genuinely sits across several areas, or that the search string is also matching adjacent work that happens to use the same words. This page cannot separate the two, and the result set is not screened by hand.
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 774 records and 306 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 (12 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 30 of the 88 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 88 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 2026-10-15.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (234 of 774). 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.