https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/quantum-differential-equation-solver-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Quantum Technologies · Patent Snapshot 2026

Quantum differential equation solver algorithm patents: who has filed and what the records show

17 patent families and 47 published records cover quantum algorithms for solving differential equations, led by a single filer on 4 families.

47
Published Records
17
Simple Patent Families
6%
In Force at Cut-off
EP
Leading Jurisdiction

47 published records collapse into 17 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 3 of 47 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 17 simple patent families sit behind 47 published records on quantum algorithms for solving differential equations, with no date limit applied to the search.
  • PASQAL NETHERLANDS BV is named on 4 of the 17 families (23.5%), the largest share held by a single row in the listed filers.
  • 15 of the 16 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, the rest of the list behind the top row.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This page reports a search for records matching differential equation or partial differential equation, together with quantum algorithm or quantum computer, and a solving step, across titles, abstracts and claims. The search carries no date limit, so the records in scope span whatever filing years the matching documents happen to fall in. The result is 17 simple patent families and 47 published records, a family can produce several records where the same invention is filed in more than one office.

17 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, they are a starting point for a closer search, not a map of it.

Records and families in scope
  1. PASQAL NETHERLANDS BV4
  2. ORIGIN QUANTUM COMPUTING TECH (HEFEI) CO LTD2
  3. Hunan Shaofeng Institute of Applied Mathematics1
  4. KIPU QUANTUM GMBH1
  5. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH1
  6. BOSONQ PSI CORP1
  7. SHANGHAI JIAOTONG UNIV1
  8. ROHDE & SCHWARZ GMBH & CO KG1
  9. DYNEX HOLDING ESTABLISHMENT1
  10. NANJING UNIV OF INFORMATION SCI & TECH1

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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (PASQAL NETHERLANDS BV, PASQAL SAS). 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; 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 16 of the 16 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 16 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 Differential Equation Solver Algorithm 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
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

The two views below count different things: the trend chart counts published records by earliest filing year, and the technology split counts simple patent families against IPC subclass.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)

Records run from 2007 up to 2026, with a peak of 13 records reached in both 2023 and 2024. Years from 2022 onward are shaded because publication takes time to catch up with filing, so the most recent years are undercounts rather than a drop in activity.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)048111542007200920112013201520172019202113202313202502022 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 (simple patent families)

G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 16 of the 16 families (94.1%), and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 8 of the 17 (47.1%). Families can carry both classes, so the two shares add up to more than 100%.

Technology composition (simple patent families)G06N · Computing based on AI models1694.1%G06F · Electric digital data processi…847.1%B82Y · Nanotechnology applications15.9%G06J · Hybrid computing15.9%G06T · Image data processing & genera…15.9%

Shares are the percentage of the 17 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 Differential Equation Solver Algorithm 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 Differential Equation Solver Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about quantum differential equation solver algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

One record from the result set

First record returned, database default order
US20240296201A12024-09-05

Quantum computer-implemented method for solving a partial differential equation

UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY

The abstract describes a quantum computer-implemented method for solving a partial differential equation for a function mapping a subspace of a k-dimensional real space into a subspace of an m-dimensional real space, together with an apparatus for solving such an equation using a quantum computer.Filed by University of the Basque Country, published 2024-09-05 as US20240296201A1. This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not a ranking by citation, novelty or scope.

US20240296201A1, patent drawing 1US20240296201A1, patent drawing 2
View record

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 Differential Equation Solver Algorithm 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
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 →
Patterns in the data

What the figures show

Three figures from this search, reported as counted, with what they establish and what they do not.

Scope
17 families / 47 records
families vs. published records

A small, undated pool

The search applies no date limit, so the 17 simple patent families and 47 published records in scope span whatever filing years the matching documents happen to fall in. The gap between the two counts reflects the same inventions reappearing across filing offices, not 47 separate inventions.

Counted in simple patent families and published records respectively.
Largest single filer row
4 of 17 families (23.5%)
share held by one row

PASQAL NETHERLANDS BV, 23.5% on one row

PASQAL NETHERLANDS BV is named on 4 of the 17 families. A separate row, PASQAL SAS, is listed further down and is not added to this figure, the two are kept as separate rows and this page does not sum them.

Share is for this single row only; filer rows overlap and cannot be added together.
Long tail
15 of 16 listed filers
filers holding 2 or fewer families

15 of 16 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

Of the 16 organisations returned in the filer list, 15 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The list excludes individual filers, who are still counted in the totals above but do not appear as named rows.

Counted in simple patent families; list covers organisations only.
Legal status
3 of 47 (6%)
records granted and in force

3 of 47 records are granted and in force

At the retrieval date, 3 of the 47 published records were granted and still in force. The remaining records fall into other statuses that are not broken out individually here, so no further split can be reported.

Legal status as of the 2026-10-20 retrieval date; it changes continuously.
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 differential equation solver algorithm 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 Quantum Differential Equation Solver Algorithm 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

Taking this further

This page reports counts from one search string. Reading claims, tracking a specific filer, or rerunning the search with different terms needs a closer tool.

Pull the granted claims

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Pull the claim set directly for any record before drawing a freedom-to-operate conclusion.

Open Patsnap Eureka

Widen or narrow the search string

This search string is one way to phrase the topic; related terms may surface families this run did not catch, and a tighter string may remove noise from adjacent subclasses.

Refine this search in Patsnap Eureka

Track a specific filer

Filer rows here are not rolled up to corporate group. Following one name across its own filings, rather than a combined group figure, keeps the picture accurate.

Set up filer tracking in Patsnap 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 Differential Equation Solver Algorithm 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

Questions practitioners ask about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Quantum Differential Equation Solver Algorithm 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 Differential Equation Solver Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole quantum differential equation solver algorithm 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:(("differential equation" OR "partial differential equation") AND ("quantum algorithm" OR "quantum computer") AND (solver OR solving))

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 94.1% 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 47 records and 17 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. 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 16 of the 16 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 16 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 (3 of 47). 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.

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.