Skip to content
PatentWorld
Chapter 28

Blockchain & Decentralized Systems

Distributed trust in the digital economy

Having examined biotechnology and the intersection of molecular biology with patent strategy, this chapter turns to blockchain, a domain whose patent trajectory is distinctively shaped by speculative market cycles and the cryptocurrency boom-bust pattern.

Blockchain technology — originally conceived as the infrastructure underlying Bitcoin — has evolved into a broader class of distributed ledger and decentralized consensus systems. This chapter examines how patenting activity in blockchain-related technologies has tracked one of the most pronounced boom–bust cycles in recent technology history, from the Bitcoin whitepaper in 2008 through the NFT and DeFi peaks of 2021 and the subsequent contraction.

Growth Trajectory

Figure 1

Blockchain Patent Grants Rose From 91 in 2016 to a Peak of 991 in 2022, Then Declined to 801 in 2024

Annual count of utility patents classified under blockchain-related CPC codes, tracking the growth and contraction of blockchain patenting.

Annual count and share of utility patents classified under blockchain-related CPC codes, illustrating the pronounced boom–bust pattern. The acceleration beginning in 2016 coincides with increasing enterprise interest in distributed ledger technology and the ICO boom of 2017. Grant year shown. Application dates are typically 2–3 years earlier.
The rise and subsequent decline in blockchain patents coincided with the broader cryptocurrency market cycle, though multiple factors — including concept exhaustion and venture capital contraction — may independently explain the trajectory.
Figure 2

Entrants Accounted for 29–39% of Blockchain Patents During the 2017–2020 Boom, Contributing to Rapid Growth

Annual patent counts from entrant and incumbent assignees in the blockchain domain.

Entrants are organizations filing their first blockchain patent in a given year; incumbents are those with prior filings.
Figure 3

One-and-Done Entrant Share Rose From 55.6% in 2018 to 89.6% in 2024, Revealing the Blockchain Boom–Bust Cycle

Percentage of new blockchain assignees who file exactly one patent and never return, by entry cohort year.

One-and-done share above 80% suggests speculative patenting by firms with no sustained commitment to the technology. The one-and-done share was moderate during 2017–2019 (peaking at 55.6% in 2018) but rose sharply after 2022, reaching 71.7% in 2023 and 89.6% in 2024 as speculative entrants exited the domain.
Figure 4

Blockchain's Share of Total Patents Rose From 0.03% in 2016 to 0.31% in 2022, Reflecting Niche Volatility

Blockchain patents as a percentage of all utility patents, showing the domain's still-small but rapidly changing share of total inventive activity.

Percentage of all utility patents classified under blockchain-related CPC codes. Even at its peak, blockchain represents a small fraction of total patenting, underscoring the domain's niche character despite disproportionate media attention.
Blockchain's share of total patents remains small even at peak levels, highlighting the disconnect between the domain's media prominence and its actual footprint in the patent system.

Blockchain Subfields

Figure 5

Distributed Ledger Patents Account for 88% of All Blockchain Filings, With Cryptocurrency at 12%

Patent counts by blockchain subfield over time, based on CPC group codes within blockchain-related classifications.

Patent counts by blockchain subfield over time. The narrow CPC classification scheme yields only two primary subfields — distributed ledger and consensus technologies versus cryptocurrency and digital money — reflecting the relatively young and undifferentiated nature of blockchain as a patent domain.
The limited number of blockchain subfields reflects the narrow CPC classification structure for this emerging domain, in contrast to more mature fields like AI or biotechnology that have developed extensive taxonomies.

Leading Organizations

Figure 6

IBM (286 Patents) and Intel (248) Lead Blockchain Patenting, With Financial Services Firms Also Active

Organizations ranked by total blockchain-related patent count, showing concentration among technology firms and financial services companies.

Organizations ranked by total blockchain-related patents. The presence of both technology firms (IBM, Intel, Alibaba) and financial services companies (Capital One, Wells Fargo) among active filers distinguishes blockchain from other technology domains and reflects the technology's origins in financial disruption.
The mix of technology firms and financial services companies among top blockchain patent holders is distinctive among technology domains, reflecting blockchain's dual identity as both a computing infrastructure and a financial technology.

Top Inventors

Figure 7

The Most Prolific Blockchain Inventor, Craig Steven Wright, Holds 47 Patents Across a Small Number of Firms

Primary inventors ranked by total blockchain-related patent count, illustrating the distribution of individual inventive output.

Primary inventors ranked by total blockchain-related patents. The distribution is heavily skewed, with top inventors typically affiliated with the leading organizational patent holders.
The concentration of prolific blockchain inventors within a few organizations mirrors the broader pattern of corporate-driven innovation in emerging technology domains.

Geographic Distribution

Figure 8

The United States (3,514 Patents) and China (444) Lead Blockchain Patenting

Countries ranked by total blockchain-related patents based on primary inventor location, showing geographic distribution.

Countries ranked by total blockchain-related patents based on primary inventor location. The United States and China lead, reflecting the concentration of both cryptocurrency development and enterprise blockchain investment in these two economies.
The US-China concentration in blockchain patenting reflects both countries' large technology sectors and contrasting regulatory approaches to cryptocurrency and distributed ledger technology.
Figure 9

California (1,033 Patents) Leads US Blockchain Patenting, With Texas (330) and Massachusetts (235) Also Prominent

US states ranked by total blockchain-related patents based on primary inventor location, highlighting geographic clustering.

US states ranked by total blockchain-related patents based on primary inventor location. California's lead is consistent with broader technology sector patterns. Texas, Massachusetts, and Washington rank ahead of New York, suggesting that general technology hubs play a larger role than financial centers in blockchain patenting.
The geographic distribution of blockchain patenting more closely follows general technology sector patterns than financial center geography, with California, Texas, Massachusetts, and Washington leading.

Quality Indicators

Figure 10

Blockchain Patent Technology Scope Averaged 2.36 CPC Subclasses in 2024, With Quality Indicators Showing Variability

Average claims, backward citations, and technology scope for blockchain patents by year, measuring quality trends.

Average claims, backward citations, and technology scope for blockchain-related patents by year. The variability in these metrics reflects the domain's youth and the evolving nature of blockchain inventions.
Quality metrics in blockchain patents exhibit greater variability than in mature domains, consistent with the rapid experimentation and unclear boundaries that characterize early-stage technology fields.
Figure 11

Blockchain Top-Decile Citation Share Declined From 28.4% in 2005 to 14.9% in 2010 as Filing Volume Increased

Share of blockchain patents in the top decile of forward citations, by grant year.

Top-decile citation share measures the proportion of domain patents that rank in the top 10% of all patents by forward citations received. Early-period values (pre-2010) are based on small sample sizes (fewer than 50 patents per year) and should be interpreted with caution.

Blockchain Patenting Strategies

Despite the domain's small overall size, the leading blockchain patent holders pursue discernibly different strategies. Some firms concentrate on core distributed ledger infrastructure, while others focus on cryptocurrency and digital payment applications. The limited number of subfields makes strategic differentiation more difficult to observe than in broader domains, but the data reveal meaningful variation in portfolio composition.

Blockchain as Cross-Cutting Technology

Although blockchain originated in the financial technology space, its proponents have long argued that the technology has applications spanning supply chain management, healthcare records, digital identity, and other domains. By tracking how frequently blockchain-classified patents also carry CPC codes from other technology areas, it is possible to assess the extent to which blockchain is diffusing beyond its financial origins.

Figure 12

Blockchain Patents Show 2.98% Co-Occurrence With Section B in 2023, but Limited Spread Elsewhere

Percentage of blockchain patents co-classified with other CPC sections, measuring blockchain's diffusion into adjacent technology domains.

Percentage of blockchain patents that also carry CPC codes from each non-blockchain section. The data show co-occurrence primarily with Sections A (Human Necessities), B (Performing Operations/Transporting), E (Fixed Constructions), and F (Mechanical Engineering). Unlike AI, which has diffused broadly across multiple technology areas, blockchain's cross-domain reach remains relatively limited.
Blockchain's cross-domain diffusion is concentrated in Human Necessities (Section A) and Performing Operations (Section B), suggesting applications in areas like supply chain and commerce rather than the broad general-purpose reach seen in AI.

Team Composition

Comparing inventor team sizes for blockchain patents versus non-blockchain patents reveals that blockchain teams are generally smaller.

Figure 13

Blockchain Patent Teams Average 2.8 Inventors per Patent in 2024, Below the 3.2 Non-Blockchain Average

Average inventors per patent for blockchain versus non-blockchain utility patents by year, showing relative team complexity.

Average number of inventors per patent for blockchain-related versus non-blockchain utility patents. Blockchain teams are generally smaller than non-blockchain patent teams, distinguishing blockchain from domains like AI where specialized patents tend to involve larger teams.
The persistently smaller team sizes for blockchain patents may reflect the domain's software-centric nature and its roots in cryptography and distributed systems, which require fewer collaborators than hardware-intensive or laboratory-based fields.
Figure 14

Corporate Assignees Account for 99% of Blockchain Patents, With Minimal University or Government Participation

Distribution of blockchain patents by assignee type (corporate, university, government, individual) over time.

Distribution of blockchain patent assignees by type over time. The overwhelming corporate share is consistent with blockchain's emergence as an enterprise and fintech technology, with relatively little academic or government involvement compared to domains like AI or biotechnology.
The near-total corporate dominance of blockchain patenting is notable even compared to other corporate-heavy domains, reflecting the technology's commercial origins and the limited role of academic blockchain research.

The Boom-Bust Pattern in Patent Data

Blockchain patenting provides perhaps the clearest case study in the dataset of how boom–bust cycles manifest in the patent system. The Bitcoin whitepaper of 2008 preceded initial interest. Ethereum's launch in 2015 expanded the conceptual scope of blockchain beyond cryptocurrency to programmable smart contracts. The ICO boom of 2017 and the NFT/DeFi peak of 2021 coincided with successive waves of patent filings. The subsequent decline coincided with a broader crypto market downturn, though disentangling market sentiment from concept exhaustion and tightening venture capital remains difficult. This pattern raises important questions about the relationship between patent filing incentives and genuine technological progress — questions that extend beyond blockchain to other emerging technology domains examined elsewhere in this study.

Having documented the trajectory of blockchain patenting and its distinctive boom–bust dynamics, the organizational strategies behind blockchain patenting are explored further in Assignee Composition.

Analytical Deep Dives

For metric definitions and cross-domain comparisons, see the ACT 6 Overview.

Figure 15

Top-4 Concentration in Blockchain Patents Rose to 26.3% During the 2018 Boom Before Declining to 14.0% by 2024

Share of annual domain patents held by the four largest organizations, measuring organizational concentration in blockchain patenting.

CR4 computed as the sum of the top 4 organizations' annual patent counts divided by total domain patents. The concentration spike during 2018–2020 reflects aggressive patenting by IBM, Alibaba-affiliated entities, and financial services firms during the cryptocurrency boom.
The boom–bust pattern in blockchain concentration mirrors the domain's broader patent trajectory: rapid consolidation during speculative enthusiasm followed by fragmentation as the market corrected and enterprise blockchain applications diversified the competitive landscape.
Figure 16

Blockchain Subfield Diversity Constrained by Narrow CPC Classification, Entropy at 0.65 Across 2 Subfields

Normalized Shannon entropy of subfield patent distributions, measuring how evenly inventive activity is spread across blockchain subfields.

Normalized Shannon entropy of blockchain subfield distributions. Unlike domains such as AI (10 subfields) or semiconductors (7 subfields), blockchain is classified under only 2 CPC subfields (distributed ledger and cryptocurrency), limiting the diversity index's range. The 0.65 value indicates moderate but not extreme concentration.
The narrow subfield structure distinguishes blockchain from other ACT 6 domains and may reflect the CPC system's lag in creating detailed classifications for emerging technologies, rather than an inherent lack of technological diversity within blockchain systems.
Figure 17

Recent Blockchain Entrants Patent Faster: 2020s Cohort Averages 9.4 Patents/Year versus 4.7 for 2000s

Mean patents per active year for top organizations grouped by the decade in which they first filed a blockchain patent.

Mean patents per active year for top blockchain organizations grouped by entry decade. The 2.0x increase reflects the maturation of enterprise blockchain platforms and the growing sophistication of DeFi and smart contract patent strategies.
The 2010s cohort's lower velocity (3.8/yr) relative to both earlier and later cohorts reflects the many speculative entrants during the initial cryptocurrency boom who filed few patents before exiting the space.
Figure 18

Blockchain Filings Peaked at 1,017 in 2019 Then Declined, While Grants Rose to 991 in 2022 — a 3-Year Pipeline Delay

Annual patent filings versus grants for blockchain, showing the boom-bust filing cycle and lagged grant output.

Blockchain's filing-vs-grant divergence is among the most pronounced of all ACT 6 domains. Filings peaked in 2019 and declined sharply, but grants continued rising through 2022 as the examination pipeline processed boom-era applications. This pattern visually captures the boom–bust cycle in blockchain patenting.

Data coverage: January 1976 through September 2025. All 2025 figures reflect partial-year data.