https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/shor-factoring-algorithm-implementation-for-integer-factorization-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Quantum Technologies · Patent Snapshot

Shor's Algorithm Factoring Patents: Who Has Filed, and What They Claim

A 6-family dataset on Shor's algorithm patent filings for integer factorization, spanning quantum computing to semiconductor classes.

14
Published Records
6
Simple Patent Families
71%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

14 published records collapse into 6 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 10 of 14 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • Just 6 simple patent families and 14 published records match this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC holds the largest single share named on 2 of the 6 families (33.3%), with every other listed filer holding 2 or fewer.
  • Most filings route through the United States 9 of 14 published records were filed there, ahead of Europe (EPO) at 2.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search returns

This dataset gathers records matching Shor's algorithm combined with factoring or integer-factorization terms and a reference to a quantum computer or quantum algorithm. It covers 6 simple patent families and 14 published records, with no start-year limit on the underlying search, so results span whatever period the matching documents happen to fall in. The technology composition leans toward computing and AI-model classes, with smaller counts touching nanotechnology, digital data processing, semiconductor devices, pulse and coding techniques, and digital transmission.

Six families is a small pool by any measure, and a dataset this size should be read as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the field. Gaps in coverage are as likely to reflect search-term limits as an absence of filing activity.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC2
  2. CAMBRIDGE WEAPONRY1
  3. RUNGTA COLLEGE OF SCI & TECH DURG1
  4. DR SAKET RUNGTA1
  5. INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE1

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 share the name RUNGTA (RUNGTA COLLEGE OF SCI & TECH DURG, DR SAKET RUNGTA). 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. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (1 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 5 of the 5 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 5 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 Shor Factoring Algorithm Implementation for Integer Factorization 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
The Numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 6-family, 14-record dataset: when records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing activity by earliest filing year (published records)

The chart runs from 2017, where the series starts at 1 record, through a peak of 6 records in 2018, to 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications continue to publish, so the most recent years understate eventual totals and should not be read as a decline.

Filing activity by earliest filing year (published records)0235612017620182019202020212022202320242025120262022 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.

IPC subclass coverage across 6 simple patent families

G06N (computing based on AI models) appears on 4 of the 6 families (66.7%), the highest share of any subclass here. B82Y (nanotechnology applications) and G06F (electric digital data processing) each appear on 2 of 6 (33.3%). G06Q, H01L, H03K, H03M and H04L each appear on 1 of 6 (16.7%). Because a single family can carry more than one subclass, these shares add up to more than 100%.

IPC subclass coverage across 6 simple patent familiesG06N · Computing based on AI models466.7%B82Y · Nanotechnology applications233.3%G06F · Electric digital data processi…233.3%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…116.7%H01L · Semiconductor devices116.7%H03K · Pulse technique & logic circui…116.7%H03M · Coding & code conversion116.7%H04L · Digital information transmissi…116.7%

Shares are the percentage of the 6 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 Shor Factoring Algorithm Implementation for Integer Factorization 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 Shor Factoring Algorithm Implementation for Integer Factorization Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about shor factoring algorithm implementation for integer factorization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in Focus

One record from the result set

As Filed
US20260244972A12026-08-20

Methods and systems for implementing Shor's algorithm with qudit recycling

INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE

The abstract describes quantum computing exploiting superposition, entanglement, coherence and interference, with processors combining qubits to run algorithms including Shor's algorithm, described as enabling superpolynomial speedup in factoring large integers. It notes that Shor's algorithm requires substantial qubit resources to reach precise factorization solutions, even for relatively modest integers, and frames qudit recycling as a response to that resource demand.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. What the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope.

US20260244972A1, patent drawing 1US20260244972A1, 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 Shor Factoring Algorithm Implementation for Integer Factorization 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 →
Reading the Data

What the figures show

Three figures from this dataset, reported as counted, with the limits that come attached to each one.

Dataset Size
6 families / 14 records
simple patent families / published records

A small, undated pool

The search returns 6 simple patent families and 14 published records with no date limit applied, so the set spans whatever years the matching documents fall in rather than a defined period.

Counted at retrieval on 2026-10-20.
Largest Filer
33.3%
share held by the top-named filer

Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC on 2 of 6 families

Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC is named on 2 of the 6 simple patent families in scope (33.3%), the largest single-row share in the listed filers. The other listed filers each hold 2 or fewer families; filer rows are not summed because a single family can name more than one filer.

Organisations only; individual-named filers are excluded from the list but remain in the totals.
Technology Split
66.7%
families carrying IPC class G06N

G06N appears on 4 of 6 families

G06N (computing based on AI models) is the most frequent IPC subclass in this set, appearing on 4 of the 6 families. B82Y and G06F each appear on 2 of 6. These shares sum to more than 100% because one family can carry several classes.

Shares are against the 6-family total, not against each other.
Filing Location
9 of 14
published records filed at the United States office

United States carries the highest receiving-office count

Of the 5 receiving offices returned, the United States accounts for 9 of the 14 published records, ahead of Europe (EPO) at 2, and Austria, India and WIPO (PCT) at 1 each. This describes where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.

Counted in published records; one invention can appear at more than one office.
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 shor factoring algorithm implementation for integer factorization 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 Shor Factoring Algorithm Implementation for Integer Factorization 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

Working with a dataset this size

A 6-family pool is narrow enough that the next useful step is usually a wider or differently worded search, not a conclusion drawn from this one.

Broaden the search terms

Terms like qudit, quantum factoring hardware or specific qubit architectures may surface related families that this exact phrasing missed.

Explore in Patsnap Eureka

Check individual-named filers separately

The organisation list excludes filings held by named individuals, even though those filings remain inside every total and share on this page.

Explore in Patsnap Eureka

Read claims directly before relying on scope

An abstract and a family count cannot establish what a granted claim covers; pull the claim set for any record that matters to a specific design.

Explore 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 Shor Factoring Algorithm Implementation for Integer Factorization 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

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Shor Factoring Algorithm Implementation for Integer Factorization 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 Shor Factoring Algorithm Implementation for Integer Factorization Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole shor factoring algorithm implementation for integer factorization 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:(("Shor" OR "Shor's algorithm") AND ("factoring" OR "integer factorization" OR "prime factorization") 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 66.7% 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 14 records and 6 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 (1 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 5 of the 5 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 5 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 (10 of 14). 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.