CNIPA.AI

Company patentsCompare

HEAD TO HEAD

MicrosoftNVIDIASpaceX

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

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

Microsoft

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

NVIDIA

Publications
2,387
Invention share
81%
Concentration
0.66
Green technology
—

SpaceX

Publications
71
Invention share
80%
Concentration
0.71
Green technology
—
0.97

Microsoft × NVIDIA

0.15

Microsoft × SpaceX

0.08

NVIDIA × 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 fieldMicrosoft / NVIDIA / SpaceX
Computer technology
72.5%
79.3%
0%
Telecommunications
3.3%
2.4%
78.1%
Digital communication
22.4%
9.1%
29.7%
Audio-visual technology
10.5%
8.8%
1.6%
Basic communication processes
1.3%
1.8%
9.4%
Measurement
2.1%
7%
3.1%
Transport
0.1%
6.9%
1.6%
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
2.1%
1.1%
4.7%
Control
1%
5%
0%
Mechanical elements
0.3%
0.3%
4.7%
IT methods for management
4.2%
0.5%
0%
Optics
3.8%
0.8%
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
NVIDIA155
SpaceX13
H04WWireless networks
Microsoft196
NVIDIA42
SpaceX15
H05KPrinted circuits, assemblies
Microsoft164
NVIDIA75
SpaceX1
H04BTransmission
Microsoft108
NVIDIA43
SpaceX29
G01SRadar, positioning
Microsoft43
NVIDIA69
SpaceX2
H03MCoding, decoding
Microsoft47
NVIDIA21
SpaceX1
H03L
Microsoft15
NVIDIA5
SpaceX4

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
    SpaceX
    —
  • G06QBusiness data processing
    Microsoft
    290
    NVIDIA
    12
    SpaceX
    —
  • G02BOptical elements
    Microsoft
    236
    NVIDIA
    13
    SpaceX
    —
  • H04LDigital transmission
    Microsoft
    1,379
    NVIDIA
    155
    SpaceX
    13
  • H04NPictorial communication, video
    Microsoft
    482
    NVIDIA
    127
    SpaceX
    —
  • H04MTelephonic communication
    Microsoft
    83
    NVIDIA
    5
    SpaceX
    —

NVIDIA

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

SpaceX

  • H01QAntennas
    Microsoft
    16
    NVIDIA
    —
    SpaceX
    30
  • H04BTransmission
    Microsoft
    108
    NVIDIA
    43
    SpaceX
    29
  • H04WWireless networks
    Microsoft
    196
    NVIDIA
    42
    SpaceX
    15
  • H03L
    Microsoft
    15
    NVIDIA
    5
    SpaceX
    4
  • C08K
    Microsoft
    —
    NVIDIA
    —
    SpaceX
    2
  • F16BFasteners
    Microsoft
    —
    NVIDIA
    —
    SpaceX
    2

04Publication rhythm

MicrosoftNVIDIASpaceXPublications per period
Publications per period
PeriodMicrosoftNVIDIASpaceX
2025-01≥539 (partial coverage)≥182 (partial coverage)≥6 (partial coverage)
2025-02≥503 (partial coverage)≥166 (partial coverage)≥10 (partial coverage)
2025-03≥603 (partial coverage)≥170 (partial coverage)≥6 (partial coverage)
2025-04≥647 (partial coverage)≥158 (partial coverage)≥3 (partial coverage)
2025-05≥566 (partial coverage)≥193 (partial coverage)≥10 (partial coverage)
2025-06≥487 (partial coverage)≥183 (partial coverage)≥7 (partial coverage)
2025-07≥686 (partial coverage)≥243 (partial coverage)≥8 (partial coverage)
2025-08≥563 (partial coverage)≥182 (partial coverage)≥2 (partial coverage)
2025-09≥587 (partial coverage)≥265 (partial coverage)≥7 (partial coverage)
2025-10≥689 (partial coverage)≥234 (partial coverage)≥3 (partial coverage)
2025-11≥582 (partial coverage)≥199 (partial coverage)≥6 (partial coverage)
2025-12≥688 (partial coverage)≥212 (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.