Following the broad analysis “Smart Pruning: How Companies Strengthen Portfolios While Cutting Cost” , we take a closer look at one of the most dynamic sectors in the study: Techplatforms & Software. This fast-paced industry shows huge volumes of patent filings and manages large portfolios. But large portfolios come with massive costs. Maintaining 10s of 100s of patents across markets requires substantial annual renewal payments and internal management resources.
This blog reveals that the patent pruning decisions made by leading tech companies closely align with objective indicators of patent quality. This raises a critical question: if quality differences are measurable early, why do most organizations wait more than a decade before acting?
A data-driven approach to patent pruning can help technology leaders address this mounting cost pressure and free up resources for more value-adding activities. Understanding patents that add value and identifying those that do not has become an increasingly relevant question for portfolio managers seeking to balance efficiency, budget, and innovation strength.
For many technology leaders, patent pruning has evolved from an operational necessity into a deliberate form of capital allocation and management. We analyzed 12 global Techplatforms & Software: Alibaba, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Baidu, ByteDance, IBM, Meta, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and Tencent. The analysis revealed that of the 110,000 active patent families filed between 2009 and 2017 and still in force in 2020, approximately 15% were dropped, leaving roughly 93,000 still active as of August 2025.
Figure 1 illustrates how patent portfolio sizes of major technology platform companies have evolved over time, highlighting the extent to which portfolios have been reduced through patent pruning. It visualizes how pruning intensity varies across industry peers, with some companies streamlining their holdings substantially while others maintaining relatively stable or expanding portfolios.
Figure 1: Portfolio size changes of the test set through pruning (2020 vs. 2025)
IBM stands out as the sector’s most aggressive pruner, reducing its overall portfolio by nearly 38%. Given that renewal fees for these companies total approximately $4.7 billion, with around $327 million due in 2026, active patent pruning should be a high priority. Even modest improvements in pruning efficiency could therefore translate into meaningful financial impact, highlighting the importance of strategic, data-driven capital allocation in managing large-scale patent portfolios.
To explore how a data-driven approach could benefit your own portfolio, speak with our team about a customized pruning assessment.
Analyzing where patent pruning occurs across specific technology fields reveals how the companies’ technological priorities evolve over time. Monitoring these shifts enables IP professionals to anticipate emerging focus areas, identify potential gaps, and adjust their own portfolio strategies before broader market trends become apparent.
Figure 2: Pruning rates across technology fields.
In the Information technology sector, IBM pruned 42.1% of its active portfolio between 2020 and 2025, meaning that only 57.9% of patents originally in force were maintained. In other words, IBM has reduced its Information-related patent holdings more aggressively than most other companies shown, suggesting a deliberate streamlining or reprioritization of its portfolio in this domain.
Using the Competitive Impact metric, a measure that combines Technology Relevance (reflecting the influence of a patent within a technology field) and Market Coverage (measuring the economic size of the markets in which protection is sought), patents were grouped into ten deciles, ranging from the lowest to the highest quality.
As shown in Table 1, among IBM’s lowest-scoring patents (deciles 1–3), patent pruning reached 47%, while just 28% of top-decile patents were dropped. Such selectivity illustrates how portfolio outcomes correlate with measurable differences in patent quality. In comparison, peer companies such as Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple, and Meta exhibit more moderate reductions, while firms like SAP, Tencent, Oracle, and ByteDance have made fewer cuts.
Table 1: Pruning rates across quality decile groups
The trend is clear: companies trim heavily at the lower end of the portfolio, reduce modestly in the middle, and make minimal cuts at the top-quality tiers. This indicates that while cost control is a driver, quality remains the guiding principle. The strongest assets, those with the highest competitive impact, are largely shielded from reduction, preserving each company’s core technological advantage.
The data does not imply that these companies used Competitive Impact to guide their decisions, but it does show that their choices align with quality patterns captured by this metric. This correlation suggests that measurable patent quality effectively reflects how organizations internally value and manage their intellectual property.
If you’d like to understand how your own pruning decisions align with measurable quality indicators, our experts can provide a qualitative portfolio assessment.
To capture how patent pruning affects portfolio composition over time, we introduced the Portfolio Improvement Index in our previous blog post on pruning. This measure tracks how the share of high-quality patents (deciles 8–10) changes relative to lower-quality ones (deciles 1–3). A positive index indicates that weaker patents were reduced while stronger ones gained in relative share.
Figure 3: Portfolio Improvement Index calculation, IBM
This metric provides a clear picture of how effectively a company’s patent pruning decisions enhance the overall strength of its portfolio, not just its size. IBM’s experience shows how the data reveals a deliberate focus on higher-impact patents. Over the past decade, the company has heavily pruned its portfolio of low-quality patents while retaining most of its high-value inventions. The result is a smaller yet stronger portfolio composition that stands out against the sector average.
Figure 4: Portfolio Improvement Index of selected tech platform companies
By contrast, some competitors show negative movement in the Portfolio Improvement Index. Both SAP and ByteDance registered decreases in their portfolio quality mix, suggesting that patent pruning alone does not guarantee improvement.
The financial implications are significant. If other players matched the patent pruning intensity of the most aggressive company in the sector, IBM, potential savings could range from about $34 million to more than $200 million per organization.
Figure 5: The saving potential of companies when the industry’s most aggressive pruning rate is applied (IBM 37.83%)
While such reductions may not be achievable for every organization due to differences in portfolio composition and strategic priorities, the scale of potential savings underscores how even partial alignment with aggressive patent pruning practices could release significant capital for innovation and operational reinvestment.
Ultimately, the findings demonstrate that quality-driven patent pruning reduces costs while promoting flexibility and focus. Since patent quality differences can be measured early, organizations have the tools to make better decisions long before renewal deadlines approach. For IP leaders, the question is no longer whether patent pruning works but why it so often comes too late.
For the Techplatforms & Software sector, the findings indicate a clear maturity in portfolio management. Leading firms apply data-driven patent pruning to align costs with innovation value, ensuring that their portfolios remain both competitive and financially sustainable. With annuity obligations exceeding $4.6 billion, even modest efficiency gains can deliver substantial budget relief without compromising innovation coverage. The strong link between pruning discipline and portfolio quality demonstrates that data-driven decisions are essential for an effective IP strategy.
This Techplatforms & Software deep dive is part of a broader exploration into how different industries navigate the balance between cost and innovation through patent pruning. Each industry tells a different story, but the message remains consistent: smart patent pruning is not just about cutting—it’s about shaping portfolios for the future.
Discover how data-driven portfolio optimization can enhance the value of innovation. Schedule a pruning consultation or a qualitative look at your patent portfolio.
The Innovation Momentum 2025: The Global Top 100 report celebrates the top 100 companies that are breaking boundaries and setting new benchmarks in technology and industry through visionary advancements.
