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 7-family dataset on variational quantum eigensolver convergence acceleration, covering filers, IPC spread and receiving offices.
14 published records collapse into 7 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 4 of 14 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports results for the search string TAC:(("variational quantum eigensolver" OR VQE) AND (convergence OR acceleration) AND optimizer), which returns 14 published records that de-duplicate to 7 simple patent families. The search carries no date limit, so the records span whatever filing years the matching documents happen to fall in; the filing-trend chart below shows a recent window only, not the full history.
With only 7 families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat the page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a map of a field, a handful of documents cannot support conclusions about concentration, trend direction or coverage gaps.
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 (14 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 4 of the 4 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 4 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 search results: a publication-year trend, and an IPC breakdown counted against the 7 simple patent families in scope.
Published records by earliest filing year run from 6 in 2022 down to 3 in 2026. Recent years are still filling in as later filings publish, so this window cannot be read as a decline, it is incomplete by construction, not falling.
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 7 simple patent families in scope. G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) appears on 2 of the 7 (28.6%). Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 7 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 variational quantum eigensolver convergence acceleration algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA method of minimizing a cost function of a quantum computation is provided. The method comprises receiving input of an initial state of a quantum problem instance comprising a Hamiltonian with an associated cost function. The Hamiltonian is converted into a number of Pauli strings, which are used to form an operator pool. The Pauli strings in the operator pool are ranked according to how much they lower a value of the cost function with respect to the initial state. Pauli strings are iteratively added from the operator pool to a parameterized quantum circuit, in a manner to minimize circuit depth, until a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) algorithm converges to an approximate ground state.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, novelty or any other measure. The abstract describes the method as filed; what the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself.


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 worth reading closely before treating this as a complete picture of anything.
VASHISTH ARYAN, ZAPATA COMPUTING INC, BAR ILAN UNIV, THE BOEING CO and YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM LTD each hold 1 of the 7 simple patent families in scope. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and one family can name more than one filer, so these counts are not added together.
All 7 simple patent families in scope carry a G06N (computing based on AI models) classification. G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) appears on 2 of the 7 families, 28.6%. Because records can carry more than one class, these two shares are not mutually exclusive.
4 of the 14 published records (29%) were granted and in force as of the 2026-10-20 retrieval date. The remaining records fall into pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable states that are not broken out individually here, so no single one of those categories can be quoted from this page.
The 14 published records were filed across 6 receiving offices: United States (5), India (4), Canada (2), Australia (1), Europe/EPO (1) and WIPO/PCT (1). This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to variational quantum eigensolver convergence acceleration algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports one search against one string. Confirming any reading from it means widening the query and reading the primary documents directly.
An abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope. Before drawing any conclusion about what a specific record covers, read its granted claim set directly.
Open in Patsnap EurekaWith 7 families in scope, adjacent phrasing or classification-only queries are likely to surface documents this string missed, especially given the IPC noise visible in the smaller subclasses.
Refine the query in Patsnap EurekaRecent filing years in this window are still incomplete because of publication lag. Revisiting the trend in a few quarters will give a fuller picture of 2024-2026 filings.
Set up monitoring in Patsnap EurekaThis dataset contains 14 published records that de-duplicate to 7 simple patent families under the search string TAC:(("variational quantum eigensolver" OR VQE) AND (convergence OR acceleration) AND optimizer). A simple family groups filings for the same invention across countries into one count, while the published-record count counts each publication separately, so the two numbers measure different things. The search carries no date limit, so this is not confined to a particular filing window; it is simply every matching record the string returned.
The listed filers returned by this search are VASHISTH ARYAN, ZAPATA COMPUTING INC, BAR ILAN UNIV, THE BOEING CO and YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM LTD, each named on 1 of the 7 simple patent families in scope. There is no single filer ahead of the others on this count, five rows are tied at the top. These are organisation-only rows; filings held by named individuals are counted in the totals but excluded from this list where they can be identified, and the rows are not summed because one family can name more than one filer.
Every one of the 7 simple patent families in scope carries a G06N classification (computing based on AI models), and 2 of the 7 (28.6%) also carry a G06Q classification (business, commerce and admin data processing). Because a single family can carry multiple IPC classes, these two shares overlap and add up to more than 100% between them. Other subclasses appear in the full chart on the page but sit below a share worth discussing in prose given the size of this dataset.
The published-record trend runs from 6 records in 2022 down to 3 in 2026, but this cannot be read as a decline. Filings take time to publish, often 18 months, and up to 30 months for PCT applications entering national phase, so the most recent years in any filing trend are still filling in and understated. With only a handful of records per year here, year-to-year moves are noise rather than a signal of direction.
US20230289501A1, filed by The Boeing Company, describes a method for minimizing a cost function in a quantum computation by building an operator pool of ranked Pauli strings and iteratively adding them to a parameterized circuit until a VQE algorithm converges. That abstract tells you what the application describes, not what its granted claims require or how far they reach. Freedom-to-operate conclusions depend on reading the granted claim set and prosecution history directly; a family count or an abstract summary cannot substitute for that.
Go past this page: query the whole variational quantum eigensolver convergence acceleration algorithm 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:(("variational quantum eigensolver" OR VQE) AND (convergence OR acceleration) AND optimizer)
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 14 records and 7 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 (14 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 4 of the 4 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 4 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 (4 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.
This page