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

Quantum Linear Systems Solver (HHL) Patents: Filers and Filing Activity

A small set of 8 patent families and 13 records on HHL-style quantum linear solvers, led by a single filer with 2 families.

13
Published Records
8
Simple Patent Families
38%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

13 published records collapse into 8 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 5 of 13 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 8 simple patent families and 13 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search.
  • UMNAI LTD holds the largest single share named on 2 of the 8 families (25.0%), ahead of six other listed filers with 1 family each.
  • 5 of 13 records were granted and still in force at retrieval (38%).
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This page tracks records matching a search for the HHL algorithm, quantum linear solver and related terms, combined with quantum computer or quantum algorithm language and a reference to matrices or equations. The search applies no date limit, so every matching record returned is in scope regardless of filing year. The result is 8 simple patent families drawn from 13 published records, with filings reaching five receiving offices.

This is a small pool: 8 families and 13 records in total. The figures below describe exactly what this search returned, not a map of the wider field of quantum linear algebra algorithms, and they are a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished picture.

Records and families in scope
  1. UMNAI LTD2
  2. ORIGIN QUANTUM COMPUTING TECH (HEFEI) CO LTD1
  3. IONQ INC1
  4. IQM FINLAND OY1
  5. Sichuan Yuanjiang Technology Co., Ltd.1
  6. UNIV OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY1
  7. HEFEI UNIV OF 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. 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 7 of the 7 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 7 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 Linear Systems Solver Algorithm via HHL Method 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
Data Breakdown

Filing activity and technology composition

The figures below cover the full set of 8 simple patent families and 13 published records returned by the search, broken out by filing year, legal status and IPC subclass.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

2021 is the peak year so far at 6 published records. Years from 2022 are still filling in because of publication lag, so no slowdown or growth pattern should be read from the recent years shown.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)02356620212022202320242025120262022 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 by IPC subclass (share of 8 families)

G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 6 of the 8 families (75.0%) and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 3 of the 8 (37.5%). A family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add up to more than 100%.

Technology composition by IPC subclass (share of 8 families)G06N · Computing based on AI models675.0%G06F · Electric digital data processi…337.5%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…112.5%

Shares are the percentage of the 8 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 Linear Systems Solver Algorithm via HHL Method 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 Linear Systems Solver Algorithm via HHL Method Patent Landscape with Eureka

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

Try Eureka
Example Record

A record from the result set

From the dataset
US20250190830A12025-06-12

System and method for variational quantum linear solver for equations modulo 2

IONQ, INC.

A system and method is provided for solving systems of binary-valued linear equations using a quantum information processing (QIP) system. The disclosure describes solving linear systems modulo 2 on a quantum computer, including a quantum circuit implementing matrix-vector products with a number of gates proportional to the number of non-zero entries in the coefficient matrix, and a variational cost function optimized to produce a solution. Compared to other quantum linear solvers, the disclosure may work on matrices of any size and rank.This is the first record returned under the database default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the dataset. It is shown to illustrate what one filing in this set actually claims, not as a representative example.

US20250190830A1, patent drawing 1US20250190830A1, patent drawing 2
View full 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 Linear Systems Solver Algorithm via HHL Method 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 →
Key Figures

What the numbers show

Three figures worth reading closely before drawing any conclusion about this dataset.

Dataset size
8 families / 13 records
simple patent families / published records

A small, undated pool

The search returned 8 simple patent families across 13 published records, with no date restriction applied. This is a small set: counts this size can shift with small changes to search terms, so they describe this particular search rather than a field.

Counted at retrieval, 2026-10-20
Largest filer
25.0%
share of 8 families held by the top-named filer

One filer named on 2 of 8 families

UMNAI LTD is named on 2 of the 8 families in scope (25.0%), the highest single-row share among the 7 listed filers. The other six listed filers each hold 1 family; filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and are not summed here.

7 organisations listed, individuals excluded from the list but included in totals
Legal status
5 of 13
records granted and in force at retrieval

38% of records in force

5 of the 13 published records were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. The remaining records sit in other statuses that are not broken out individually here, so no pending or lapsed count can be stated.

Status as of 2026-10-20
Technology split
75.0% / 37.5%
share of 8 families carrying G06N / G06F

G06N and G06F lead the IPC mix

G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 6 of the 8 families (75.0%) and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 3 of the 8 (37.5%). Because a family can carry multiple IPC subclasses, these two figures add up to more than the total family count.

Share of all 8 simple patent families
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 linear systems solver algorithm via hhl method 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 Linear Systems Solver Algorithm via HHL Method 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 go from here

This page is a starting point built from one search string. The next steps depend on what you need to check next.

Read the granted claims directly

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Anyone assessing freedom to operate against a specific design needs to pull the full claim set for the record in question.

Explore in Patsnap Eureka

Widen or adjust the search terms

With only 8 families in scope, related filings using different terminology for the same solver approach may sit outside this particular string. Adjusting the search is the fastest way to test that.

Run a new search 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 Linear Systems Solver Algorithm via HHL Method 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

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Quantum Linear Systems Solver Algorithm via HHL Method 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 Linear Systems Solver Algorithm via HHL Method Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole quantum linear systems solver algorithm via hhl method 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:(("HHL algorithm" OR "quantum linear solver" OR "linear systems of equations") AND ("quantum computer" OR "quantum algorithm") AND (matrix OR equation))

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 75.0% 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 13 records and 8 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 7 of the 7 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 7 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 (5 of 13). 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.