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 →A 14-family patent set on quantum phase estimation for eigenvalue computation, led by Microsoft Technology Licensing with 21.4% of families.
42 published records collapse into 14 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 15 of 42 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports a search for records combining phase estimation or quantum phase estimation with eigenvalue or eigenstate terms, alongside references to a quantum computer or quantum algorithm. The result set runs to 42 published records, consolidating down to 14 simple patent families once documents covering the same invention across jurisdictions are grouped together. No date limit was set on the search, so this reflects every matching record the database holds, not a bounded filing window.
With only 14 families in scope, this is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, they are a starting point for a closer search, not a map of the wider field.
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 10 of the 10 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 10 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
The figures below are drawn directly from the 14 simple patent families and 42 published records returned by this search.
Published records by earliest filing year run from 6 in 2018 to a peak of 8 in 2021, then fall off into 2026. The years from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart because records filed there are still publishing, a dip in that stretch reflects publication lag, not reduced 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.
G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on all 14 families in scope, and G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 7 of the 14 (50.0%). Because a single family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 14 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about quantum phase estimation algorithm for eigenvalue computation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA classical computer transmits, to a quantum computer, information related to a coefficient matrix when an equation of motion of a target system is expressed in a matrix format, and a quantum circuit generated based on a quantum state corresponding to an eigenstate of the target system, for executing quantum phase estimation. The quantum computer acquires a measurement result of an eigenvalue of the coefficient matrix by executing the quantum circuit and transmits it to the classical computer, which computes an eigenfrequency of the target system from the result.This is simply the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing. It is shown to illustrate what one record in this set claims, not to represent the set as a whole.


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.
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 →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 →Three figures from this search, reported without ranking or interpretation beyond what each number states on its own.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC is named on 3 of the 14 simple patent families in scope, a 21.4% share of this row alone. This is a count of families naming that entity; it does not describe claim scope, validity or commercial activity.
Of the 10 organisations returned in the filer list, 9 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The list contains organisations only, filings by named individuals are excluded from it but remain inside the 14-family total.
G06N (computing based on AI models) is present on all 14 families in scope, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 7 of the 14 (50.0%). Since a family can carry both classifications, these two shares overlap and add to more than 100%.
At the 2026-10-20 retrieval date, 15 of the 42 published records (36%) were granted and still in force. The remainder were not broken down further in this dataset, so no figure for pending, withdrawn or lapsed records can be stated.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to quantum phase estimation algorithm for eigenvalue computation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page surfaces figures from one search string. Confirming any of them against the full claim text or a wider search takes closer reading.
An abstract and a family count cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Where a specific filing matters to a project, pull the granted claim set rather than reasoning from the abstract.
Open Patsnap EurekaWith 14 families in scope, adjacent phrasing or classification codes may surface records this string missed. A small pool is often a sign of narrow search terms rather than a narrow field.
Run a new search in Patsnap EurekaThis particular search returned 42 published records, which consolidate to 14 simple patent families once documents covering the same invention across jurisdictions are grouped. The search combined phase estimation or quantum phase estimation terms with eigenvalue or eigenstate terms and a quantum computer or quantum algorithm reference. No date limit was applied, so this reflects everything the search string matched at retrieval, not a bounded filing window. A different set of search terms would likely return a different count, so this figure should be read as a starting point rather than a definitive total.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC is named on 3 of the 14 simple patent families in scope, a 21.4% share, the largest single-row figure among the 10 listed filers. Nine of those ten listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. The filer list contains organisations only, with individual named filers excluded from the table though still counted in the 14-family total, and rows are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and its subsidiaries would appear as separate entries if present.
Published records by earliest filing year ran from 6 in 2018 to a peak of 8 in 2021, before declining toward 2026. Years from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart because records filed in that stretch are still publishing - most routes take around 18 months to publish, and PCT applications entering national phase can take up to 30 months. This means the apparent fall-off from 2022 reflects publication lag rather than a drop in filing, and the trend counts published records rather than distinct inventions, so a single invention filed in several countries adds multiple marks to the same year.
All 14 simple patent families in scope carry an IPC classification in G06N, which covers computing based on AI models, and 7 of the 14 (50.0%) also carry G06F, electric digital data processing. Because a family can carry more than one classification, these two shares overlap and add to more than 100% rather than partitioning the set. Other classification codes appear in the underlying data but at low enough counts that they are not detailed here, since a broad search string can pull in unrelated matches at low volume.
No. This page reports family counts, filer names and an abstract from one example record, none of which establish what a granted claim actually requires or covers. Claim scope lives in the granted claims and the prosecution history of a specific patent, and equivalents can extend a claim beyond its literal wording, so neither an abstract nor a count of related families can support a freedom-to-operate conclusion. Any question about whether a specific design is clear of a specific patent needs the granted claim set read directly, ideally with counsel.
Go past this page: query the whole quantum phase estimation algorithm for eigenvalue computation patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("phase estimation" OR "quantum phase estimation") AND ("eigenvalue" OR "eigenstate") AND ("quantum computer" OR "quantum algorithm"))
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 100.0% 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 42 records and 14 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 10 of the 10 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 10 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 (15 of 42). 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.
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.
This page