The quantum computing patent landscape spans 17,514 families and is heavily concentrated: IBM alone leads by a wide margin, with the top five filers accounting for roughly half the activity among ranked applicants. Annual filings grew steadily through 2023 and remain active, with the most recent periods under-counted due to publication lag.
↗ Tap any metric to open the live data in PatSnap Eureka
Published byPatSnap Insights Team··7 min readVerified by PatSnap Eureka data
Overview
IBM leads a concentrated field; Google and Microsoft form a clear second tier
IBM (International Business Machine Corporation) holds the top position with 4,388 patent families — more than 1.8 times the count of second-ranked Google LLC (2,385 families). Microsoft Technology Licensing ranks third at 1,175 families, followed by Origin Quantum Computing Technology (Hefei) at 1,135 and D-Wave Systems at 975.
The top five applicants together account for 48% of combined patent families among the leading filers, signaling strong concentration at the apex. A pronounced tier gap exists between IBM and Google and the rest of the field; the drop from fifth to sixth place (D-Wave at 975 to Northrop Grumman at 761) is sharp.
Leading applicants
#
Applicant
Patent families
Share
1
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION
4,388
2
GOOGLE LLC
2,385
3
MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC
1,175
4
ORIGIN QUANTUM COMPUTING TECH (HEFEI) CO LTD
1,135
5
D WAVE SYSTEMS INC
975
6
NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORP
761
7
BEIJING BAIDU NETCOM SCI & TECH CO LTD
643
8
IONQ INC
546
9
FUJITSU LTD
485
10
RIGETTI & CO INC
428
11
INTEL CORP
428
12
IQM FINLAND OY
407
13
TENCENT TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO LTD
403
14
QUANTINUUM LLC
373
15
PSIQUANTUM CORP
369
16
UIPATH INC
302
17
COMMISSARIAT A LENERGIE ATOMIQUE ET AUX ENERGIES A…
295
18
YALE UNIVERSITY
275
19
NEC CORP
270
20
MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH
265
↗ Hover a row · click a company to ask Eureka
IBM's scale implies deep prior-art coverage across quantum algorithms, superconducting hardware, and error correction — raising freedom-to-operate complexity for new entrants. Google's accelerating trajectory (▲ +18% recent trend) suggests it is narrowing the gap in active filings even while remaining well behind on cumulative stock.
Counts reflect patent families as the primary size measure; one family groups equivalent filings across jurisdictions, avoiding double-counting. IPC and jurisdiction counts are at the patent-record level and can exceed the family total because a single family may carry multiple classifications or national filings.
Source — PatSnap Eureka. Chart shows applicant ranking by patent families; counts are at the patent-family level. Applicant family counts can overlap where a family lists several applicants, so they need not sum to the total in scope.Explore the data →
Trends & Structure
Sustained filing growth through 2023; AI-model computing dominates the technology mix
Two lenses reveal both pace and shape of innovation: the annual filing trend shows when the field accelerated, while the IPC branch composition shows which technical sub-domains attract the most activity.
Annual filing trend
Filings rose sharply from 843 families in 2017 to a recorded peak of 3,113 in 2023, representing roughly 23% growth in recent years. The 2024 figure (2,236) and especially 2025 (907) and 2026 (25) are substantially under-counted due to the 18–24 month publication lag and should not be read as a decline; the underlying filing rate is almost certainly higher than the published count suggests.
↗ Hover for values · click a bar to ask Eureka
Technology composition
G06N (computing based on AI models, which in this context captures quantum algorithm and information-processing patents) dominates with 19,254 records — far exceeding all hardware branches. G06F (digital data processing, 4,145 records), H10N (other electric solid-state devices including superconducting qubits, 3,164), H01L (semiconductor devices, 2,872), and B82Y (nanotechnology, 2,585) form a secondary hardware cluster. The gap between the software/algorithm layer and the hardware layer is a structural feature of the landscape.
↗ Hover for values · click a bar to ask Eureka
Source — PatSnap Eureka. IPC record counts can exceed family totals because one family may carry multiple classifications. IPC counts are at the patent-record level — a single family can carry several classes, so class totals exceed the total family count.Explore the data →
Insights
What the competitive structure means for R&D investment
Reading concentration, life-cycle stage, collaboration patterns, and geographic footprint together gives an engineer a clearer picture of where the field is defensible and where it is still open.
Maturity
Field is at maturity stage with plateaued annual filings near peak
Annual filings reached 3,113 families in 2023 and have plateaued near that level, consistent with a maturing technology. Core algorithmic and superconducting-qubit approaches are densely patented; incremental improvements in established directions face high prior-art density. R&D investment is better directed toward differentiated sub-domains — hardware modalities (photonic, trapped-ion, topological) or application layers — rather than re-treading well-covered ground.
Lifecycle: Maturity
Concentration
Top-five concentration at 48% creates high IP barriers for new entrants
With 48% of combined patent families among ranked filers held by just five organizations, freedom-to-operate analysis is essential before product development begins. IBM's 4,388-family portfolio spans algorithms, hardware, and error-correction, making it the broadest blocking presence. The gap between the top two (IBM, Google) and the rest of the field is large enough that challengers must seek differentiation rather than direct competition across all sub-domains.
High concentration
Collaboration
IBM–subsidiary and IonQ–university pairings are the most active co-filing axes
The most frequent co-filing pairs in the dataset are IBM with IBM Deutschland GmbH (185 joint families) and IBM with IBM United Kingdom Ltd (127), reflecting internal corporate co-assignment. The most strategically significant external collaborations are IonQ with the University of Maryland (66 joint families) and IonQ with Duke University (45), indicating a tight industry–academia link in trapped-ion development. Intel and Delft University of Technology (16 joint families) represent a silicon-spin qubit partnership worth monitoring.
Industry–academia links
Geography
US filing dominance; Europe and PCT channels serve as secondary protection routes
The United States is the primary filing jurisdiction with 10,300 patent records, followed by Europe (EPO) at 3,631 and WIPO (PCT) at 3,276. Australia (1,249) and Canada (966) constitute a secondary English-language tier. Coverage in India (21 records), Singapore (220), and Israel (15) is relatively sparse given those markets' growing quantum programs, which may represent a protection gap for applicants with global commercialization plans.
US-centric, Europe secondary
Top collaboration links
Applicant
Collaborator
Co-filings
International Business Machine Corporation
IBM DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
185
International Business Machine Corporation
IBM UNITED KINGDOM LTD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPAR…
127
IonQ Inc
University of Maryland
66
IonQ Inc
Duke University
45
International Business Machine Corporation
IBM China Co Ltd
18
Intel Corporation
Delft University of Technology
16
International Business Machine Corporation
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
15
International Business Machine Corporation
Goldman Sachs LLC
12
RIGETTI & CO INC
RIGETTI AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
9
International Business Machine Corporation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
8
Co-filing pairs, ranked by the number of jointly-filed patent families.
Source — PatSnap Eureka. Jurisdiction counts are at the patent-record level; one family may appear in multiple jurisdictions.Explore insights →
Leaders
IBM anchors the field; Google and IonQ show the strongest recent momentum
The ranking by patent families reveals a clear leader-challenger structure, while recent filing momentum shows which players are accelerating into the next phase of quantum development.
Leader · IBM
International Business Machine Corporation
IBM holds 4,388 patent families — the largest portfolio in the field — concentrated in quantum algorithms (G06N 10, 2,111 records), superconducting devices (H10N 60, 783 records), and semiconductor fabrication (H01L 39, 510 records). Its recent trend is ▼ -6%, suggesting the pace of new filings is moderating from prior peaks. IBM also shows the broadest collaboration network, co-filing with IBM Deutschland GmbH (185 families), IBM UK (127), MIT (15), and Goldman Sachs (12), indicating active application-layer partnerships.
families: 4,388
Challenger · Google LLC
Google LLC
Google holds 2,385 patent families and is the fastest-growing top-two player at ▲ +18% in recent filings. Its portfolio is concentrated in quantum algorithms (G06N 10, 1,485 records; G06N 99, 371 records) and superconducting hardware (H10N 60, 357 records), closely mirroring IBM's technical focus but at roughly half the accumulated scale. IonQ (546 families, ▲ +44% recent trend) is the fastest-growing challenger overall, with a distinct focus on trapped-ion hardware (G21K 1, G02F 1) rather than superconducting approaches.
families: 2,385
Patent Assignee
Additional Assignee
Holds multiple active families across this technology cluster spanning several jurisdictions.
Undisclosed
Patent Assignee
Additional Assignee
Holds multiple active families across this technology cluster spanning several jurisdictions.
Undisclosed
🔍
See the full applicant breakdown
Access rankings for all 20 applicants including Origin Quantum, D-Wave, Northrop Grumman, Fujitsu, and academic institutions.
Origin Quantum Computing Technology (Hefei)D-Wave Systems Inc+ more
Source — PatSnap Eureka. Applicant counts are at the patent-family level; trend figures are from recent versus prior filing periods.Explore players →
Adjacent Branches
Under-served hardware and communications branches adjacent to the core
Five IPC branches show meaningful record counts but represent lower relative shares of the overall landscape, making them adjacent areas worth watching. These are observations of relative sparsity against the dominant G06N cluster — not validated market opportunities.
H03K · Pulse technique & logic circuits
With 1,663 records and a 4% share among IPC classes, pulse and logic circuit design for quantum control electronics is less densely covered than algorithm or qubit-fabrication branches. Quantum hardware systems require highly specialized classical control pulses; innovations here (e.g., room-temperature pulse generators, low-latency feedback circuits) could be technically valuable and face less entrenched prior-art density. An entry path exists through co-development with hardware integrators or system-on-chip suppliers already active in adjacent H01L and H10N branches.
The H04L branch (digital information transmission) shows 821 records at a 2% share — sparse relative to its likely importance in quantum networking, quantum key distribution, and hybrid classical-quantum communication architectures. As quantum networks move from lab demonstrations toward infrastructure, protocol-level and physical-layer patents in this branch could become strategically important. IonQ's partial overlap with optical transmission (H04B 10, 69 records at PsiQuantum) and photonic sub-systems suggests that photonic-networking players may be the most natural entrants.
Further under-served technical routes identified across the dataset.
Additional white space
Further under-served technical routes identified across the dataset.
🔒
Unlock the full white-space map
See all adjacent branches including nanotechnology applications (B82Y), semiconductor devices (H01L), and solid-state devices (H10N) with filing-gap analysis.
H10N · Other electric solid-state devicesB82Y · Nanotechnology applications+ more
Source — PatSnap Eureka. Branch record counts are at the IPC-record level; sparsity is relative to the dominant G06N cluster, not an absolute measure of commercial opportunity.Explore emerging →
Route Matrix
How leading applicants differ by technology route
Strength of each leader across the main technology routes.
Player
G06N 10 · Computing based on AI models
G06N 99 · Computing based on AI models
H10N 60 · Other electric solid-state devices
B82Y 10 · Nanotechnology applications
H01L 39 · Semiconductor devices
International Business Machine Corporation
Strong — 2,111
Emerging — 289
Moderate — 783
Emerging — 216
Moderate — 510
Google LLC
Strong — 1,485
Moderate — 371
Moderate — 357
Emerging — 91
Emerging — 149
D-Wave Systems Inc
Strong — 313
Strong — 478
Moderate — 189
Moderate — 132
Strong — 260
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC
Strong — 689
Emerging — 117
Moderate — 141
Emerging — 92
Emerging — 93
Rigetti & Co Inc
Strong — 309
Moderate — 99
Absent
Strong — 159
Absent
IonQ Inc
Strong — 451
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation
Absent
Strong — 176
Moderate — 71
Moderate — 86
Moderate — 39
Source — PatSnap Eureka. Matrix counts are at the patent-record level; one family may carry multiple IPC codes and appear in multiple routes.Compare in Eureka →
Key Patents
Foundational and most-cited patents
The most-cited families that anchor this space — hover a row and click to open it in Eureka.
Most-cited patents
#
Patent
Citations
1
Analog processor comprising quantum devices
373
2
Adiabatic quantum computation with superconducting…
Systems, methods and apparatus for local programmi…
285
6
Systems, devices, and methods for interconnected p…
277
7
Band-structure modulation of nano-structures in an…
277
8
Systems, devices, and methods for analog processing
262
Ranked by total forward citations. Citation counts accrue over time, so this list favours older, broadly-cited patents and may include general-purpose work beyond the specific topic; treat it as foundational context rather than a current-activity ranking.
Source — PatSnap Eureka. Most-cited patent families for this query, ranked by total forward citations.Open in Eureka →
Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions
The landscape covers 17,514 patent families globally. Annual filings have grown from 843 families in 2017 to a recorded 3,113 in 2023, reflecting roughly 23% growth in recent years. Figures for 2024–2026 are under-counted due to the 18–24 month publication lag.
International Business Machine Corporation (IBM) leads with 4,388 patent families, followed by Google LLC (2,385), Microsoft Technology Licensing (1,175), Origin Quantum Computing Technology Hefei (1,135), and D-Wave Systems (975). The top five together account for 48% of combined patent families among ranked filers.
Among top-ranked applicants, IonQ shows the strongest recent growth at ▲ +44%, followed by Fujitsu at ▲ 4.0× versus prior three-year period (from a smaller base), Rigetti at ▲ +33%, and Google at ▲ +18%. Microsoft (▼ -50%), D-Wave (▼ -55%), and Northrop Grumman (▼ -79%) show declining recent filing rates.
G06N (computing based on AI models, capturing quantum algorithms and information processing) dominates with 19,254 patent records. Hardware branches form a secondary cluster: G06F (4,145), H10N solid-state devices (3,164), H01L semiconductors (2,872), and B82Y nanotechnology (2,585). Note that these are IPC-record counts and one family can carry multiple classifications.
The United States is the lead jurisdiction with 10,300 patent records, followed by Europe (EPO) at 3,631 and WIPO/PCT at 3,276. Australia (1,249) and Canada (966) form a secondary tier. India (21), Singapore (220), and Israel (15) have relatively sparse coverage despite active national quantum programs.
The most-cited works in the evidence include 'Analog processor comprising quantum devices' (373 citations), 'Adiabatic quantum computation with superconducting devices' (363), 'Fault tolerant scalable modular quantum computer architecture' (340), and 'Processing Signals in a Quantum Computing System' (330). These foundational works cover analog quantum processors, adiabatic computing, fault tolerance, and signal processing in quantum systems.
Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka answers them from patent and research data.Ask Eureka →
PatSnap Eureka
Map your own quantum computing patent landscape
Join 18,000+ innovators using PatSnap Eureka to map any technology landscape — search 2B+ patents and papers, surface key assignees, and generate a report like this in minutes.
This page was generated using PatSnap Eureka from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records. The figures, rankings, charts, and commentary are produced by automated analysis and large-language-model summarisation, and are provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. 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, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently 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.