CNIPA.AI

Company patentsCompare

HEAD TO HEAD

MicrosoftNVIDIA

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.

NVIDIA: Applicant names included in these statistics — NVIDIA CORPReviewed names not covered — NVIDIA CORP. · NVIDIA CORPORATION

Publications
7,140
Invention share
97%
Concentration
0.59
Green technology
—
Publications
2,387
Invention share
81%
Concentration
0.66
Green technology
—
0.97Field 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 fieldNVIDIA
72.5%
Computer technology
79.3%
22.4%
Digital communication
9.1%
10.5%
Audio-visual technology
8.8%
2.1%
Measurement
7%
0.1%
Transport
6.9%
1%
Control
5%
3.3%
Telecommunications
2.4%
4.2%
IT methods for management
0.5%
3.8%
Optics
0.8%
2.1%
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
1.1%
2.1%
Semiconductors
1.1%
1.3%
Basic communication processes
1.8%

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.

G06FData processing
Microsoft3,890
NVIDIA881
G06NComputing models, AI
Microsoft1,064
NVIDIA497
H04LDigital transmission
Microsoft1,379
NVIDIA155
G06TImage processing
Microsoft479
NVIDIA719
G06VImage and video recognition
Microsoft295
NVIDIA403
H04NPictorial communication, video
Microsoft482
NVIDIA127
G10LSpeech processing
Microsoft250
NVIDIA87
G06QBusiness data processing
Microsoft290
NVIDIA12
G02BOptical elements
Microsoft236
NVIDIA13
H05KPrinted circuits, assemblies
Microsoft164
NVIDIA75

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
    NVIDIA
    881
  • H04LDigital transmission
    Microsoft
    1,379
    NVIDIA
    155
  • G06QBusiness data processing
    Microsoft
    290
    NVIDIA
    12
  • G02BOptical elements
    Microsoft
    236
    NVIDIA
    13
  • H04NPictorial communication, video
    Microsoft
    482
    NVIDIA
    127
  • H04WWireless networks
    Microsoft
    196
    NVIDIA
    42

NVIDIA

  • G06TImage processing
    Microsoft
    479
    NVIDIA
    719
  • G06VImage and video recognition
    Microsoft
    295
    NVIDIA
    403
  • B60WVehicle sub-unit control
    Microsoft
    —
    NVIDIA
    138
  • G06NComputing models, AI
    Microsoft
    1,064
    NVIDIA
    497
  • G05D
    Microsoft
    —
    NVIDIA
    64
  • B25JManipulators, robots
    Microsoft
    —
    NVIDIA
    60

04Publication rhythm

MicrosoftNVIDIAPublications per period
Publications per period
PeriodMicrosoftNVIDIA
2025-01≥539 (partial coverage)≥182 (partial coverage)
2025-02≥503 (partial coverage)≥166 (partial coverage)
2025-03≥603 (partial coverage)≥170 (partial coverage)
2025-04≥647 (partial coverage)≥158 (partial coverage)
2025-05≥566 (partial coverage)≥193 (partial coverage)
2025-06≥487 (partial coverage)≥183 (partial coverage)
2025-07≥686 (partial coverage)≥243 (partial coverage)
2025-08≥563 (partial coverage)≥182 (partial coverage)
2025-09≥587 (partial coverage)≥265 (partial coverage)
2025-10≥689 (partial coverage)≥234 (partial coverage)
2025-11≥582 (partial coverage)≥199 (partial coverage)
2025-12≥688 (partial coverage)≥212 (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.