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/quantum-algorithm-for-quadratic-unconstrained-binary-optimization-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Quantum Technologies · Patent DataQuantum Algorithm for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Patents
Data on 114 patent families and 274 records on QUBO quantum algorithms, led by a single filer with 14% of families.
274
Published Records
114
Simple Patent Families
14%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
38%
In Force at Cut-off
274 published records collapse into 114 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. DELL PROD LP is named on 16 of the 114 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 In force = 104 of 274 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 114 simple patent families and 274 published records sit in scope for this search. Of the 274 records, 104 (38%) were granted and still in force at retrieval.
- Dell Prod LP is named on 16 of the 114 families, the largest single-row share at 14.0%. 76 of the 84 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
- G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 86 of the 114 families, a 75.4% share. G06F (electric digital data processing) follows at 46 families, 40.4% of the total.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page reports every record matched by a search for "quadratic unconstrained binary optimization" or QUBO combined with quantum algorithm, quantum annealer or quantum computer terms, and the word optimization. The search string carries no date limit, so the scope spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to fall in; the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window of that full span, not the whole of it. In total, 114 simple patent families (one per invention, de-duplicated across the countries it was filed in) and 274 published records (one per publication) are in scope.
Filer volume, technology composition and receiving-office counts below are all read off this same 114-family / 274-record base. None of these figures distinguishes a genuinely QUBO-specific claim from a record that matched the search terms incidentally; broad terms like 'optimization' and 'quantum computer' can pull in adjacent work.
Records and families in scope
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 (8 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 84 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 84 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 Quantum Algorithm for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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
Filing volume, filers and classification mix
The figures below are drawn directly from the search result: a filing-trend series counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Filing trend by earliest filing year
Counted in published records (not de-duplicated across countries), the series runs from 2010 (2 records) to a peak of 46 records in 2021, with 2026 showing 6 so far. 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 publication-lag effect, not 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.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 86 of the 114 families (75.4%), and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 46 of the 114 (40.4%). Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100%, and the full chart lists 22 subclasses in all.
Shares are the percentage of the 114 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 Quantum Algorithm for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Quantum Algorithm for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about quantum algorithm for quadratic unconstrained binary optimization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative Filing
A record from the result set
From the search result
Iterative Quantum Annealing
SAP SE
The abstract describes an annealing engine placed upstream of a quantum annealer (or a digital, simulated or classical solver). The engine processes an initial solution to an original QUBO model to construct a second QUBO model, which is fed to the quantum annealer for a computed solution; the engine then builds an intermediate solution from that computed result and the second model, checking it against a stopping criterion.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, grant status or breadth. It illustrates one way the search terms appear in a claim, nothing more.
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 Quantum Algorithm for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 Data
Three figures worth sitting with
Each card below states one figure from the dataset and what it does, and does not, establish.
Largest filer
16 of 114 families
Dell Prod LP
One row holds a 14.0% share of families
Dell Prod LP is named on 16 of the 114 simple patent families in scope, a 14.0% share. Filer rows in this list are not rolled up to corporate group, and this figure describes that single row only; it says nothing about claim scope or enforceability.
Source: filer list, 114-family base
Long tail
76 of 84 filers
2 or fewer families each
Most listed filers hold two families or fewer
Of the 84 listed filers, 76 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This describes how spread the listed filers are across the dataset; it is not a count of all organisations active in this area, since the list is capped at the entities the search endpoint returns.
Source: filer list, 114-family base
Legal status
104 of 274 records
Granted & in force
38% of records were granted and in force at retrieval
At the retrieval date, 104 of the 274 published records (38%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records are a mix of statuses not broken out here (pending, withdrawn, lapsed, refused); this figure is a snapshot, not a measure of quality or a success rate.
Source: legal status at 2026-10-20
Classification spread
86 of 114 families
G06N share
G06N appears on 75.4% of families
G06N (computing based on AI models) is classified on 86 of the 114 families, 75.4%. G06F follows at 46 families, 40.4%. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes these two shares overlap and add to more than 100% together; they are not mutually exclusive buckets.
Source: IPC breakdown, 114-family base
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 quantum algorithm for quadratic unconstrained binary optimization 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 Quantum Algorithm for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps
Where to take this from here
The figures above describe what this search returned. Deeper questions about claim scope, specific filers, or adjacent technology terms call for a closer read.
Read the granted claims directly
Family and classification counts cannot establish what any single patent covers. If a particular filing matters to a design decision, pull its granted claim set rather than reasoning from the abstract.
Explore full claims in Eureka →Track how the listed filers' portfolios evolve
Filer rows here are a snapshot at retrieval. Monitoring changes in family counts over time for a specific name can surface new filings as they publish.
Set up filer tracking in Eureka →Test adjacent search terms
Different phrasing around quantum annealing, Ising models or combinatorial optimization may return a different family set. Comparing searches helps separate genuine overlap from shared vocabulary.
Run a new 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 Quantum Algorithm for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this dataset
This search returned 114 simple patent families and 274 published records. A family counts one invention regardless of how many countries it was filed in, while a record counts each publication separately, so the two numbers describe the same underlying set from different angles. The search string carries no date limit, so this is every matching record the database holds, not a window bounded to recent years. Because the string matches broad terms like 'quantum computer' and 'optimization' alongside QUBO itself, some records may relate only loosely to QUBO specifically.
Dell Prod LP is named on 16 of the 114 families in scope, the largest single-row share at 14.0%. Beyond that, the filer list shows a long tail: 76 of the 84 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer names are not rolled up to a parent company, so related entities (a parent and its subsidiaries, for instance) appear as separate rows rather than being combined, and this list is capped at the entities the search endpoint returns rather than being every organisation active in the space.
At the 2026-10-20 retrieval date, 104 of the 274 published records (38%) were granted and still in force. The remaining 170 records carry a mix of other statuses, such as pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed, that are not individually broken out in this dataset. This figure is a snapshot of legal status at one moment, not a success rate or a quality measure, and it will change as more records move through examination or lapse.
IPC classification shows G06N (computing based on AI models) on 86 of the 114 families, 75.4%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 46 families, 40.4%. Because a single family can carry more than one classification code, these two shares overlap rather than summing cleanly, and the full breakdown spans 22 subclasses in total. The two largest classes point toward AI-model computing and general digital data processing as the categories most frequently attached to these filings.
This dataset does not support a growth-rate figure: the filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, and the most recent years are still filling in as later applications publish, with the shaded stretch from 2022 onward understated for that reason. The series runs from 2 records in 2010 up to a peak of 46 in 2021, but comparing recent years to that peak would misread a publication-lag artefact as a change in filing behaviour. No growth percentage is presented on this page because the data does not support computing one reliably.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Quantum Algorithm for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Quantum Algorithm for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole quantum algorithm for quadratic unconstrained binary optimization 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:(("quadratic unconstrained binary optimization" OR QUBO) AND ("quantum algorithm" OR "quantum annealer" OR "quantum computer") AND optimization)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 75.4% 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 274 records and 114 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 (8 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 84 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 84 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 (104 of 274). 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.