https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/surface-code-quantum-error-correction-decoder-architecture-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Quantum Computing

Surface Code Quantum Error Correction Decoder Patents

123 patent families on surface code quantum error correction decoders, with filer volumes, IPC mix and filing history to 2026.

357
Published Records
123
Simple Patent Families
15%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
41%
In Force at Cut-off

357 published records collapse into 123 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. GOOGLE LLC is named on 18 of the 123 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 145 of 357 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 123 simple patent families and 357 published records sit behind this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • GOOGLE LLC is named on 18 of the 123 families (14.6%), the highest share of any single listed filer.
  • 66 of 79 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, a long tail alongside the single largest row.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape is built from the search string TAC:(("surface code") AND ("error correction" OR decoder) AND quantum), which returned 357 published records collapsing to 123 simple patent families. No date limit was applied, so the result set spans whatever years the matching records happen to carry; the filing-trend chart on this page shows only a recent window of that activity, not the full scope.

At retrieval, 145 of the 357 records (41%) were granted and still in force. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. GOOGLE LLC18
  2. MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC11
  3. RIVERLANE LTD10
  4. AMAZON TECH INC7
  5. 1QB INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INC5
  6. RIGETTI & CO INC4
  7. PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE4
  8. QUERA COMPUTING INC4
  9. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION4
  10. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO4

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 (9 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 30 of the 79 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 79 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 Surface Code Quantum Error Correction Decoder Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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
The Numbers

Filing activity and technology mix

Two views of the same 123 families: how publications have accumulated by filing year, and which IPC subclasses the records fall under.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

Records climb from 32 in 2017 to a peak of 83 in 2024. From 2022 onward the counts are still filling in as later publications arrive, so the most recent years understate eventual totals; this is a publication-lag effect, not a drop in filing.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)02550751003220172018201920202021202220238320242025820262022 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 (IPC subclass)

G06N, covering computing based on AI models, appears on 118 of the 123 families (95.9%), the only subclass clearing a double-digit share described in this prose. A record can carry more than one IPC class, so subclass shares add up to more than 100% of the family total.

Technology composition (IPC subclass)G06N · Computing based on AI models11895.9%H03M · Coding & code conversion1713.8%G06F · Electric digital data processi…1512.2%H04L · Digital information transmissi…86.5%B82Y · Nanotechnology applications64.9%H04B · Transmission (general)54.1%H03K · Pulse technique & logic circui…43.3%H10N · Other electric solid-state dev…32.4%Other86.5%

Shares are the percentage of the 123 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 Surface Code Quantum Error Correction Decoder Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Surface Code Quantum Error Correction Decoder Architecture Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about surface code quantum error correction decoder architecture patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example Record

A record from the result set

First record returned, database default order
US20260030532A12026-01-29

Methods for synthesizing boolean circuits for a quantum error correction decoder and a quantum error correction decoder chip using thereof

1QB INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INC.

The abstract describes a method for synthesizing Boolean circuits for a quantum error correction decoder: taking input binary variables derived from syndrome measurements, applying a mapping representative of the decoder to produce output binary variables representing recovery operations for qubits, and using both sets of variables to synthesize at least one Boolean circuit. It also references a decoder chip built from such circuits.US20260030532A1, filed by 1QB INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INC, published 2026-01-29. This is simply the first record returned under the database's default order, not a ranking by citations, grant status or breadth.

US20260030532A1, patent drawing 1US20260030532A1, 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 Surface Code Quantum Error Correction Decoder Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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 facts drawn directly from the dataset, each reported as counted rather than interpreted.

Largest filer
18 families
GOOGLE LLC, of 123 total

Single highest share among listed filers

GOOGLE LLC is named on 18 of the 123 simple patent families in scope, a 14.6% share. This is the single largest row on the filer list; it is a count of named families, not a measure of claim scope or portfolio strength.

Filer list, 79 entities (organisations only)
Long tail
66 of 79
listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

Most listed filers hold very few families

66 of the 79 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filer rows are not mutually exclusive, a family can name more than one filer, so this count is reported on its own rather than combined into a share.

Listed filers, organisations only
Technology mix
95.9%
of 123 families carry G06N

G06N appears on nearly all families

G06N, computing based on AI models, is recorded on 118 of the 123 families in scope (95.9%). Records can carry several IPC classes at once, so this share is read against the family total, not against the other subclasses on the chart.

IPC subclass breakdown, family-level
Legal status
41%
of 357 records in force

Share granted and in force at retrieval

145 of the 357 published records (41%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. The remaining 59% covers pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable statuses combined, which this dataset does not split out further.

Legal status, record-level, at 2026-10-21
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 surface code quantum error correction decoder architecture 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 Surface Code Quantum Error Correction Decoder Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Going deeper on this dataset

The figures above describe the shape of the field. Reading individual claim sets, tracking a specific filer's filings over time, or checking a particular record's legal status requires looking past the aggregate counts.

Read the granted claims directly

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent covers. For any record that matters to a design decision, pull the granted claim set itself.

Explore in Patsnap Eureka

Track a filer's activity over time

The filer table shows family counts at a point in time. Filtering by filer and by publication date gives a sense of when a given organisation's filings landed.

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 Surface Code Quantum Error Correction Decoder Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Surface Code Quantum Error Correction Decoder Architecture Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Surface Code Quantum Error Correction Decoder Architecture Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole surface code quantum error correction decoder architecture 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:(("surface code") AND ("error correction" OR decoder) AND quantum)

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 95.9% 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 357 records and 123 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 (9 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 30 of the 79 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 79 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 2026-10-21.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (145 of 357). 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.