CNIPA.AI

Company patentsCompare

HEAD TO HEAD

AlibabaEli LillySpaceX

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.

Alibaba: Applicant names included in these statistics — ALIBABA CHINA CO LTD · ALIBABA CLOUD COMPUTING CO LTD · ALIBABA CLOUD COMPUTING LTD · ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LTDReviewed names not covered — ALIBABA (CHINA) CO., LTD. · ALIBABA CLOUD COMPUTING CO., LTD. · ALIBABA CLOUD COMPUTING LTD. · ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LIMITED · 阿里云计算有限公司 · 阿里巴巴集团控股有限公司 · 阿里巴巴(中国)有限公司

Eli Lilly: Applicant names included in these statistics — ELI LILLY AND CO · ELI LILLY AND COMPANY USA · LILLY CO ELIReviewed names not covered — ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

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

Alibaba

Publications
1,101
Invention share
96%
Concentration
0.51
Green technology
—

Eli Lilly

Publications
1,602
Invention share
45%
Concentration
0.73
Green technology
—

SpaceX

Publications
71
Invention share
80%
Concentration
0.71
Green technology
—
0.01

Alibaba × Eli Lilly

0.07

Alibaba × SpaceX

0.01

Eli Lilly × SpaceX

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
Technology fieldAlibaba / Eli Lilly / SpaceX
Telecommunications
0%
0%
78.1%
Pharmaceuticals
0%
68.5%
0%
Computer technology
63.5%
0.6%
0%
Digital communication
12.5%
0.1%
29.7%
Biotechnology
0%
39.9%
1.6%
Audio-visual technology
29.8%
0.1%
1.6%
Organic fine chemistry
0%
25.8%
0%
Medical technology
0.4%
17.6%
0%
Basic communication processes
0.6%
0%
9.4%
Measurement
0.8%
1%
3.1%
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
0.3%
0%
4.7%
Mechanical elements
0%
0%
4.7%

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.

H04WWireless networks
Alibaba9
Eli Lilly2
SpaceX15

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.

Alibaba

  • G06FData processing
    Alibaba
    547
    Eli Lilly
    2
    SpaceX
    —
  • H04NPictorial communication, video
    Alibaba
    331
    Eli Lilly
    —
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06NComputing models, AI
    Alibaba
    173
    Eli Lilly
    3
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06VImage and video recognition
    Alibaba
    70
    Eli Lilly
    2
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06TImage processing
    Alibaba
    67
    Eli Lilly
    5
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06QBusiness data processing
    Alibaba
    40
    Eli Lilly
    3
    SpaceX
    —

Eli Lilly

  • A61K
    Alibaba
    —
    Eli Lilly
    926
    SpaceX
    —
  • A61P
    Alibaba
    —
    Eli Lilly
    766
    SpaceX
    —
  • C07K
    Alibaba
    —
    Eli Lilly
    454
    SpaceX
    1
  • C07DHeterocyclic compounds
    Alibaba
    —
    Eli Lilly
    300
    SpaceX
    —
  • A61M
    Alibaba
    —
    Eli Lilly
    196
    SpaceX
    —
  • C12NMicroorganisms, enzymes
    Alibaba
    —
    Eli Lilly
    153
    SpaceX
    —

SpaceX

  • H01QAntennas
    Alibaba
    —
    Eli Lilly
    —
    SpaceX
    30
  • H04BTransmission
    Alibaba
    —
    Eli Lilly
    —
    SpaceX
    29
  • H04WWireless networks
    Alibaba
    9
    Eli Lilly
    2
    SpaceX
    15
  • H04LDigital transmission
    Alibaba
    113
    Eli Lilly
    —
    SpaceX
    13
  • H03L
    Alibaba
    —
    Eli Lilly
    —
    SpaceX
    4
  • F16BFasteners
    Alibaba
    —
    Eli Lilly
    —
    SpaceX
    2

04Publication rhythm

AlibabaEli LillySpaceXPublications per period
Publications per period
PeriodAlibabaEli LillySpaceX
2025-01≥78 (partial coverage)≥118 (partial coverage)≥6 (partial coverage)
2025-02≥71 (partial coverage)≥121 (partial coverage)≥10 (partial coverage)
2025-03≥72 (partial coverage)≥158 (partial coverage)≥6 (partial coverage)
2025-04≥65 (partial coverage)≥110 (partial coverage)≥3 (partial coverage)
2025-05≥71 (partial coverage)≥134 (partial coverage)≥10 (partial coverage)
2025-06≥83 (partial coverage)≥140 (partial coverage)≥7 (partial coverage)
2025-07≥82 (partial coverage)≥138 (partial coverage)≥8 (partial coverage)
2025-08≥104 (partial coverage)≥134 (partial coverage)≥2 (partial coverage)
2025-09≥119 (partial coverage)≥132 (partial coverage)≥7 (partial coverage)
2025-10≥94 (partial coverage)≥155 (partial coverage)≥3 (partial coverage)
2025-11≥115 (partial coverage)≥140 (partial coverage)≥6 (partial coverage)
2025-12≥147 (partial coverage)≥122 (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.