CNIPA.AI

Company patentsCompare

HEAD TO HEAD

Bank of ChinaMicrosoftSpaceX

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.

Bank of China: Applicant names included in these statistics — BANK OF CHINA CO LTD · BANK OF CHINA LTDReviewed names not covered — BANK OF CHINA LIMITED · 中国银行股份有限公司

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

Bank of China

Publications
138
Invention share
98%
Concentration
0.75
Green technology
—

Microsoft

Publications
7,140
Invention share
97%
Concentration
0.59
Green technology
—

SpaceX

Publications
71
Invention share
80%
Concentration
0.71
Green technology
—
0.89

Bank of China × Microsoft

0.06

Bank of China × SpaceX

0.15

Microsoft × 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 fieldBank of China / Microsoft / SpaceX
Computer technology
74.6%
72.5%
0%
Telecommunications
0%
3.3%
78.1%
Digital communication
13.8%
22.4%
29.7%
IT methods for management
42%
4.2%
0%
Audio-visual technology
3.6%
10.5%
1.6%
Basic communication processes
0%
1.3%
9.4%
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
0%
2.1%
4.7%
Mechanical elements
0.7%
0.3%
4.7%
Measurement
0%
2.1%
3.1%
Optics
0%
3.8%
0%
Macromolecular chemistry, polymers
0%
0%
3.1%
Semiconductors
0%
2.1%
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
Bank of China19
Microsoft1,379
SpaceX13
H04WWireless networks
Bank of China1
Microsoft196
SpaceX15
H05KPrinted circuits, assemblies
Bank of China2
Microsoft164
SpaceX1

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.

Bank of China

  • G06QBusiness data processing
    Bank of China
    58
    Microsoft
    290
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06VImage and video recognition
    Bank of China
    18
    Microsoft
    295
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06FData processing
    Bank of China
    83
    Microsoft
    3,890
    SpaceX
    —
  • F17D
    Bank of China
    1
    Microsoft
    —
    SpaceX
    —

Microsoft

  • H04NPictorial communication, video
    Bank of China
    3
    Microsoft
    482
    SpaceX
    —
  • G02BOptical elements
    Bank of China
    —
    Microsoft
    236
    SpaceX
    —
  • G10LSpeech processing
    Bank of China
    1
    Microsoft
    250
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06NComputing models, AI
    Bank of China
    18
    Microsoft
    1,064
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06TImage processing
    Bank of China
    7
    Microsoft
    479
    SpaceX
    —
  • H04LDigital transmission
    Bank of China
    19
    Microsoft
    1,379
    SpaceX
    13

SpaceX

  • H01QAntennas
    Bank of China
    —
    Microsoft
    16
    SpaceX
    30
  • H04BTransmission
    Bank of China
    —
    Microsoft
    108
    SpaceX
    29
  • H04WWireless networks
    Bank of China
    1
    Microsoft
    196
    SpaceX
    15
  • H03L
    Bank of China
    —
    Microsoft
    15
    SpaceX
    4
  • C08K
    Bank of China
    —
    Microsoft
    —
    SpaceX
    2
  • F16BFasteners
    Bank of China
    —
    Microsoft
    —
    SpaceX
    2

04Publication rhythm

Bank of ChinaMicrosoftSpaceXPublications per period
Publications per period
PeriodBank of ChinaMicrosoftSpaceX
2025-01≥19 (partial coverage)≥539 (partial coverage)≥6 (partial coverage)
2025-02≥65 (partial coverage)≥503 (partial coverage)≥10 (partial coverage)
2025-03≥51 (partial coverage)≥603 (partial coverage)≥6 (partial coverage)
2025-04Not collected≥647 (partial coverage)≥3 (partial coverage)
2025-05Not collected≥566 (partial coverage)≥10 (partial coverage)
2025-06Not collected≥487 (partial coverage)≥7 (partial coverage)
2025-07Not collected≥686 (partial coverage)≥8 (partial coverage)
2025-08Not collected≥563 (partial coverage)≥2 (partial coverage)
2025-09≥1 (partial coverage)≥587 (partial coverage)≥7 (partial coverage)
2025-10Not collected≥689 (partial coverage)≥3 (partial coverage)
2025-11Not collected≥582 (partial coverage)≥6 (partial coverage)
2025-12≥2 (partial coverage)≥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.