Fastest
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/docsis-and-cable-access-networks-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Telecom InfrastructureDOCSIS and Cable Access Network Patents: Who Leads and Where Filing Is Heading
- Top-heavy field. the five leading assignees together hold 224 of 436 records in scope (51.4%), and the leading ten hold 310 (71.1%).
- Filing has cooled. activity peaked at 33 records in 2022 and has declined since, with 2026 figures still partial due to publication lag.
- Video and multiplex claims trail transmission claims. H04N (video/TV) sits at 36.2% and H04J (multiplex) at 24.3% of records, well behind H04L (digital transmission) at 89.0%.
436
Published Records
51%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+5%
3-Yr Growth (lag-adjusted)
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this patent set covers
This landscape draws on 436 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine DOCSIS, cable access network or hybrid fiber coax terminology with claim-level language on upstream capacity, distributed access architecture, full duplex DOCSIS, ingress noise or latency, classified under H04L12, H04N21 or H04B3. The scope is deliberately narrow: it is not every cable-modem patent ever filed, but the subset where the claims engage the specific engineering problems that define modern DOCSIS deployments — splitting the access network's intelligence, pushing more spectrum through existing coax, and controlling latency well enough to support real-time services.
Most activity sits with equipment vendors and chipset suppliers rather than the cable operators themselves, and the record set skews toward United States filings, reflecting where DOCSIS deployment and R&D have concentrated historically.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on DOCSIS and Cable Access Networks covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 436 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how it splits across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose to a peak of 33 records in 2022, then declined. 2026 is a partial year and will read low regardless of underlying activity because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
IPC subclass composition
H04L (digital information transmission) appears in 89.0% of the 436 records in scope, confirming that most claims are written as transmission-layer inventions even when the underlying use case is video delivery (H04N, 36.2%) or general transmission engineering (H04B, 25.9%). Because records carry multiple classes, these shares do not sum to 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 436 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on DOCSIS and Cable Access Networks covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on DOCSIS and Cable Access Networks with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about docsis and cable access networks and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited records in this set
Representative filing
Full duplex DOCSIS cable modem echo cancellation with training
MAXLINEAR, INC.
Systems and methods are provided for full duplex DOCSIS cable modem echo cancellation with training. During reception of downstream signals, echo effects on downstream signals may be determined, with at least some of the echo effects corresponding to concurrently transmitted upstream signals. Echo cancellation corrections may be determined based on the determined echo effects, and the echo cancellation corrections may be applied during processing of the downstream signals. The echo cancellation corrections may include one or both of ACI (adjacent channel interference) cancellation corrections and ALI (adjacent leakage interference) cancellation correction.Filed by MaxLinear, published 2018-10-04 — a chipset-level claim on the specific echo-cancellation problem that full duplex DOCSIS creates when upstream and downstream signals share spectrum.
Highest-cited records
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20020061012A1 | Cable modem with voice processing capability | 637 |
| 2 | US6765931B1 | Gateway with voice | 481 |
| 3 | US20080313691A1 | Premises gateway apparatus and methods for use in a content-based network | 438 |
| 4 | US20020154620A1 | Head end receiver for digital data delivery systems using mixed mode SCDMA and TDMA multiplexing | 402 |
| 5 | US7050419B2 | Head end receiver for digital data delivery systems using mixed mode SCDMA and TDMA multiplexing | 391 |
| 6 | US20010033583A1 | Voice gateway with downstream voice synchronization | 354 |
| 7 | US20050031097A1 | Gateway with voice | 238 |
| 8 | US20080170853A1 | System for low noise aggregation in DOCSIS contention slots in a shared upstream receiver environment | 232 |
| 9 | US6285681B1 | Variable length burst transmission over the physical layer of a multilayer transmission format | 232 |
| 10 | US20100191525A1 | Gateway With Voice | 212 |
Citation counts accumulate over time inside a searched corpus, so older filings such as these tend to lead the table regardless of current commercial relevance — read them as markers of foundational influence, not present-day priority.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on DOCSIS and Cable Access Networks covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →Insights
What the numbers say about this field
Three patterns stand out once concentration, timing and classification are read together.
Concentration
51.4%
of 436 records held by top 5
A small group holds the field, but not all of it
The leading five assignees combined account for 224 of the 436 records in scope, and the leading ten reach 310 (71.1%). That leaves roughly a third of the field split across a long tail of 98 ranked companies, most holding only a handful of records each — real but scattered activity outside the leaders.
Ranking covers 98 companies, counted in records.
Momentum
33 (2022)
peak-year filings
Filing has flattened since the 2022 peak
Annual filings rose from 11 in 2017 to a peak of 33 in 2022, then declined. Several of the largest historical filers show zero records in the latest year, including year-over-year drops of -100% for some — consistent with a field where the architectural questions DOCSIS 3.1 and full duplex DOCSIS raised have largely been claimed, not with declining relevance.
2026 figures are partial; publication lags filing by roughly 18 months.
Classification
89.0% H04L
share of 436 records
Claims are written as transmission engineering, not video
Despite cable's video heritage, only 36.2% of records carry an H04N (pictorial communication) class, versus 89.0% for H04L. Multiplex communication (H04J, 24.3%) and general transmission (H04B, 25.9%) both trail digital transmission claims, suggesting the durable IP in this field sits at the physical and data-link layers rather than in service-specific video handling.
Class shares sum to more than 100% because records carry multiple IPC codes.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to docsis and cable access networks, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on DOCSIS and Cable Access Networks covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
Filing leadership splits between the incumbent cable-equipment vendors and the chipset suppliers that build the silicon underneath them, with cable operators themselves filing far less than the equipment side.
Leader
50 records
leading assignee
Equipment and chipset vendors set the pace
The top-ranked assignee holds 50 records, roughly double the fifth-place holder's 40, before the field flattens into a longer tail — tenth place sits at 10 records. This shape is typical of a technology where a handful of vertically integrated vendors patent defensively across the full stack.
Leader 50 · fifth place 40 · tenth place 10.
Filing venue
261 US
of receiving-office filings
Filing is heavily US-centred
United States filings (261) dominate the receiving-office count, with Europe (64) and WIPO/PCT (52) well behind, and Canada, Australia and Austria trailing further. That pattern tracks where DOCSIS deployment and standards work (CableLabs) are headquartered.
Receiving offices: US 261, EPO 64, WIPO 52, Canada 17, Australia 10, AT 9.
Collaboration
10 pairs
co-assignee pairs
Co-filing is rare and inventor-anchored
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the set, and the strongest links pair a single chipset assignee with named individual inventors rather than with other companies — collaboration here looks more like internal inventor teams than cross-company joint filing.
Strongest pairs each recur 5 times.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Broadcom Inc. | 0 | — |
| Charter Communications Operating, LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Cisco Technology, Inc. | 0 | — |
| ARRIS Enterprises LLC | 0 | — |
| Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC | 0 | -100% |
| MaxLinear, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. | 0 | — |
| General Instrument Corporation | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on DOCSIS and Cable Access Networks covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific follow-up questions rather than a single conclusion.
Watch for a shift toward distributed access claims
With core transmission classes densely claimed, expect any renewed filing growth to concentrate on distributed access architecture and remote PHY signalling rather than on baseline modem transmission.
Explore distributed access filings →Check freedom-to-operate before building on full duplex DOCSIS
Echo cancellation and shared-spectrum upstream claims are concentrated with a small number of chipset holders; a design review before committing silicon is the cheaper path.
Run a freedom-to-operate check →Track the tail, not just the leaders
Roughly 29% of records sit outside the leading ten assignees; some of that tail may hold narrow but blocking claims in the under-claimed branches identified above.
Screen the long tail →Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on DOCSIS and Cable Access Networks covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about DOCSIS and cable access network patents
The ranking covers 98 companies counted by patent family, and it is led by a single assignee with 50 records, with the fifth-ranked holder at 40 and the tenth at 10. The top five combined account for 51.4% of all 436 records in scope, and the top ten reach 71.1%. That leaves a meaningful long tail: dozens of companies hold only a handful of records each, so the field is concentrated at the top but not closed off to smaller filers.
Filing activity peaked at 33 records in 2022 and has declined since, with several of the largest historical filers showing zero filings in the most recent year. Some of that recent-year drop reflects publication lag — filings typically take around 18 months to publish, so the last one to two years will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. Even accounting for that lag, the trend line points to a mature filing cycle rather than an accelerating one.
Representative filings, such as the MaxLinear patent on echo cancellation with training, protect the signal-processing techniques needed when upstream and downstream traffic share the same spectrum band. That includes adjacent channel interference and adjacent leakage interference cancellation corrections applied during downstream signal processing. Anyone implementing full duplex DOCSIS on shared spectrum should expect this specific problem — echo from concurrent upstream transmission — to already be covered by prior filings from chipset vendors.
H04L (digital information transmission) appears in 89.0% of the 436 records in scope, making it the dominant classification by a wide margin. H04N (pictorial communication, covering video/TV) sits at 36.2%, H04B (general transmission) at 25.9%, and H04J (multiplex communication) at 24.3%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC codes, these figures overlap rather than sum to 100%, but the pattern is consistent: claims are written primarily as transmission-layer inventions, not video-service inventions.
Filing density is comparatively thin around ingress noise mitigation specific to full duplex upstream, latency-bounded scheduling for distributed access nodes, and signalling for remote PHY or MACPHY split architectures. These are technically specific sub-areas rather than broad claim gaps, since the core transmission classes are already densely occupied by leading chipset and equipment vendors. A first claim in these branches would need to tie tightly to a specific architecture element — for example scheduling behaviour at a distributed access node under a defined latency bound — rather than claim the general concept.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on DOCSIS and Cable Access Networks covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research DOCSIS and Cable Access Networks in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole docsis and cable access networks corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.