CNIPA.AI

Company patentsCompare

HEAD TO HEAD

MicrosoftSpaceX

Technology portfolios compared in the same window and counting units. Scale is compared only within the same field or subclass.

Same window · published 2025-01-01 — 2025-12-31Some name or date coverage is incomplete; affected counts are lower bounds

This is a structural comparison of collected portfolios. The same requested window does not establish equal entity scope, covered months or industry; no competitive ranking is inferred.

Applicant-name coverage differs. The counts below cover only the listed names and do not represent complete company portfolios.

Microsoft: Applicant names included in these statistics — MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLCReviewed names not covered — MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC · MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC.

SpaceX: Applicant names included in these statistics — SPACE EXPLORATION TECH CORPReviewed names not covered — SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. · SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Publications
7,140
Invention share
97%
Concentration
0.59
Green technology
—
Publications
71
Invention share
80%
Concentration
0.71
Green technology
—
0.15Field similarity
Cosine similarity of application counts across 35 fields. 1 is identical, 0 is no overlap.

01Technology field mirror

The 12 fields with the largest combined share. Share shows structure; count shows scale.

Technology field mirror
MicrosoftTechnology fieldSpaceX
3.3%
Telecommunications
78.1%
72.5%
Computer technology
0%
22.4%
Digital communication
29.7%
10.5%
Audio-visual technology
1.6%
1.3%
Basic communication processes
9.4%
2.1%
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
4.7%
2.1%
Measurement
3.1%
0.3%
Mechanical elements
4.7%
4.2%
IT methods for management
0%
3.8%
Optics
0%
0%
Macromolecular chemistry, polymers
3.1%
2.1%
Semiconductors
0%

Inspect one technology field

Inspect collected applications, portfolio share and supporting publications within one field. A technology overlap does not establish that companies in different industries are direct competitors.

One application may belong to multiple fields, so shares can sum to more than 100%. Drill-down lists publications; an application publication and its grant may appear separately.

02Same problem: shared IPC subclasses

The 10 subclasses in every company's top 60 with the most combined applications. Scale is compared within a subclass, never across different business scopes.

H04LDigital transmission
Microsoft1,379
SpaceX13
H04WWireless networks
Microsoft196
SpaceX15
H05KPrinted circuits, assemblies
Microsoft164
SpaceX1
H04BTransmission
Microsoft108
SpaceX29
H02JPower supply, energy storage
Microsoft54
SpaceX2
H03MCoding, decoding
Microsoft47
SpaceX1
H01QAntennas
Microsoft16
SpaceX30
G01SRadar, positioning
Microsoft43
SpaceX2
H03L
Microsoft15
SpaceX4
F16M
Microsoft11
SpaceX2

03Where each one leans

Observed emphasis within each company’s collected top-60 IPC subclasses. A dash for another company means outside its top-60 list, not zero applications or a market gap. Incomplete coverage can also change the ordering.

Microsoft

  • G06FData processing
    Microsoft
    3,890
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06NComputing models, AI
    Microsoft
    1,064
    SpaceX
    —
  • H04NPictorial communication, video
    Microsoft
    482
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06TImage processing
    Microsoft
    479
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06VImage and video recognition
    Microsoft
    295
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06QBusiness data processing
    Microsoft
    290
    SpaceX
    —

SpaceX

  • H01QAntennas
    Microsoft
    16
    SpaceX
    30
  • H04BTransmission
    Microsoft
    108
    SpaceX
    29
  • H04WWireless networks
    Microsoft
    196
    SpaceX
    15
  • H03L
    Microsoft
    15
    SpaceX
    4
  • C08K
    Microsoft
    —
    SpaceX
    2
  • F16BFasteners
    Microsoft
    —
    SpaceX
    2

04Publication rhythm

MicrosoftSpaceXPublications per period
Publications per period
PeriodMicrosoftSpaceX
2025-01≥539 (partial coverage)≥6 (partial coverage)
2025-02≥503 (partial coverage)≥10 (partial coverage)
2025-03≥603 (partial coverage)≥6 (partial coverage)
2025-04≥647 (partial coverage)≥3 (partial coverage)
2025-05≥566 (partial coverage)≥10 (partial coverage)
2025-06≥487 (partial coverage)≥7 (partial coverage)
2025-07≥686 (partial coverage)≥8 (partial coverage)
2025-08≥563 (partial coverage)≥2 (partial coverage)
2025-09≥587 (partial coverage)≥7 (partial coverage)
2025-10≥689 (partial coverage)≥3 (partial coverage)
2025-11≥582 (partial coverage)≥6 (partial coverage)
2025-12≥688 (partial coverage)≥3 (partial coverage)

Empty dashed outlines mark uncollected periods. Hatched bars and ≥ counts mark partial coverage.

Publication timing follows examination and publication cycles, not R&D intensity.

What makes it comparableThe same publication window and counting units. Companies with different windows are not put in one comparison.

What is not comparableGroup totals. Business and entity scopes differ; compare scale within a field or subclass.

Not a rankingSimilarity and shares describe structure, not patent value, quality or technical leadership.