Book a demo

Network Slicing Safety Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026

Network Slicing Safety Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/network-slicing-safety-and-compliance-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Telecom & Wireless
Network slicing safety and compliance patents: mapping isolation and regulatory claims across 1,148 families
  • Filing has cooled since a 2020 peak. 241 filings in 2020 versus 17 so far in the partial 2026 year, with the 2022 midpoint (170) already below peak — this is a maturing claim space, not a growing one.
  • H04W dominates but H04L is close behind. 932 records sit in wireless network subclass H04W against 420 in digital transmission subclass H04L, showing isolation and compliance claims are argued as much at the transport layer as the radio layer.
  • Three names co-file almost every isolation claim together. PARK KYUNGMIN, TALEBI FARD PEYMAN and QIAO WEIHUA appear as co-assignee pairs 73-77 times each — the tightest inventor cluster in the dataset, though their filing activity has now dropped to zero in the latest year.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
1,148
Published Records
55%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-64%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (228 records) with 2024 (83) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 1,148 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this landscape covers

Network slicing lets a single physical 5G network be partitioned into logically separate virtual networks, each tuned to a different customer or use case. Slicing safety and compliance patents cover the mechanisms that keep those partitions from leaking into one another — slice isolation, access-control enforcement, and the regulatory hooks operators need to prove a slice meets a jurisdiction’s security requirements. This search combines slicing terminology with isolation and compliance language across 1,148 patent families filed between 2017 and the current partial year.

Filing activity concentrates heavily in wireless network architecture (H04W) and digital transmission (H04L), with smaller but persistent activity in data processing, AI-based network management, and even traffic control — a sign that slicing compliance claims are being written into adjacent systems, not just core 5G standards documents.

Filing activity, 2017-2026
  1. 1OFINNO LLC238
  2. 2TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)150
  3. 3HUAWEI TECH CO LTD140
  4. 4NEC CORP58
  5. 5COMCAST CABLE COMM LLC46
  6. 6PENINSULA TECH LLC38
  7. 7HONOR DEVICE CO LTD35
  8. 8NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY34
  9. 9INTERDIGITAL PATENT HOLDINGS INC33
  10. 10NOKIA SOLUTIONS & NETWORKS OY30
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Network Slicing Safety and Compliance 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

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
The data

Filing trends and technology composition

Two views of the same 1,148 families: how filing volume moved year over year, and where those filings sit across the IPC classification system.

A 2020 peak, then a pullback

Filings rose from 81 in 2017 to a peak of 241 in 2020, then eased to 170 by the 2022 midpoint. The 17 filings recorded so far in 2026 look thin, but publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the last one to two years of any trend will always understate the true filing rate.

A 2020 peak, then a pullback06312518825081201720182019241202020212022202320242025172026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Wireless and transmission classes carry the claim load

H04W (932 records) and H04L (420) account for the bulk of filings, consistent with slicing being defined at both the radio access and transport layers. G06F, H04B, G06N, G06Q, G01S and G08G each carry a smaller slice, marking where slicing compliance logic touches data processing, AI-driven orchestration, positioning and traffic systems.

Wireless and transmission classes carry the claim loadH04W · Wireless communication networks93281.2%H04L · Digital information transmissi…42036.6%G06F · Electric digital data processi…736.4%H04B · Transmission (general)544.7%G06N · Computing based on AI models211.8%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…171.5%G01S · Radar, sonar & positioning141.2%G08G · Traffic control systems100.9%Other827.1%

Shares are the percentage of the 1,148 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 Network Slicing Safety and Compliance covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Network Slicing Safety and Compliance with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about network slicing safety and compliance and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key patents

The most-cited and most representative filings

Representative filing
US20230032806A12023-02-02

Dedicated wide area network slices (US20230032806A1)

MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC

Infrastructure comprising a wide area network (WAN) is adapted as a transport network portion of a 5G network in which the WAN is sliced at the optical layer on a discrete wavelength basis to provide dedicated network capacity to customers such as service providers, application providers, and network operators. Optical layer slicing extends the slicing construct for a radio access network (RAN) portion of the 5G network through to the WAN to provide end-to-end 5G network slicing from user equipment (UE) accessing an air interface of the network to application servers that are instantiated in data centers in a network cloud portion of the 5G network.Filed by Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, published 2023-02-02.

US20230032806A1 — patent drawing 1US20230032806A1 — patent drawing 2
View full filing
Highest-cited records in this dataset
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US20200259896A1Industrial Automation with 5G and Beyond742
2US20190182875A1User Plane Function Selection For Isolated Network Slice233
3US20190394833A1Multi Access Packet/Protocol Data Unit Session221
4US20200314701A1Handover For Closed Access Group156
5US20200053828A1Network Initiated UPF sessions Transfer152
6US20200107213A1Packet Duplication by Core Network143
7US20190306251A1Data Transmission over User Plane for Cellular IoT135
8US20230180017A1Provisioning radio-based networks with locality rules133
9US20190335392A15G Policy Control for Restricted Local Operator Services132
10US20200305118A1Wireless Communications for Communication Setup/Response126

Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings; treat them as a signal of prior-art weight, not of current commercial relevance.

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 Network Slicing Safety and Compliance 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
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 →
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 mean for filing strategy

Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are read against each other: where claim density sits, who is still active, and how citation weight is distributed.

Filing momentum
241 → 17
peak year to latest partial year

The claim space has cooled from its 2020 high

Volume fell from a 2020 peak of 241 filings toward a partial 2026 count of 17. Even allowing for publication lag, the 2022 midpoint of 170 already sits below peak, which points to a claim space that filled up rather than one still opening.

Read alongside the IPC split, not in isolation.
Classification spread
932 vs 420
H04W records vs H04L records

Radio access still leads, but transport is catching up

H04W carries more than double the H04L count, but the transport-layer share is large enough that isolation and compliance claims are clearly being argued across both layers rather than confined to the radio interface.

Secondary classes (G06F, G06N, G08G) show where slicing logic bleeds into adjacent systems.
Filing geography
465 US filings
vs 251 EPO, 149 WIPO, 79 India

US filings lead but PCT and EPO routes carry real weight

United States receiving-office volume leads at 465, with EPO at 251 and WIPO (PCT) at 149 close behind. India's 79 filings and Germany's 61 suggest compliance-specific claims are being pursued in jurisdictions with active telecom regulatory regimes, not just the largest markets.

Receiving office counts reflect filing strategy, not grant outcomes.
Inventor clustering
73-77 co-filings
top three co-assignee pairs

A small inventor cluster shaped early isolation claims

PARK KYUNGMIN, TALEBI FARD PEYMAN and QIAO WEIHUA appear together in the strongest co-assignee pairs in the dataset, each pair co-filing 73-77 times. All three show zero filings in the latest year, meaning this cluster's claim territory is now static rather than expanding.

A static top cluster often signals settled claim boundaries, not abandoned territory.
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 network slicing safety and compliance, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Network Slicing Safety and Compliance 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 activity has stalled

Recent-year momentum tells a different story from cumulative counts: several of the most prolific historic filers show sharply reduced or zero activity in the latest year, which matters more for freedom-to-operate planning than raw totals do.

Momentum check
-100% YoY
for two of the largest historic filers

Two major filers dropped to zero in the latest year

Ofinno and Huawei both show a -100% year-on-year change in the latest recorded year, following periods of active filing. That does not mean they have exited the space, but it does mean their most recent claim activity in this specific search is dormant relative to prior years.

Cross-check against continuation filings before assuming exit.
Steady but slowing
-50% YoY
NEC's latest-year change

NEC still files, at a reduced rate

NEC recorded 1 filing in the latest year, down 50% year-on-year. It is one of the few named assignees still showing any activity at all in the most recent period covered by this dataset.

A single filing at reduced pace still counts as presence, unlike the assignees at zero.
Ericsson's position
0 in latest year
no year-on-year comparison given

Ericsson shows no latest-year filings in this search

Ericsson's latest-year count sits at zero within this specific slicing-safety search string, though this reflects the scope of the search terms rather than the company's overall 5G patent activity, which spans far more than isolation and compliance claims.

Broader Ericsson filings likely sit outside this narrow search string.
🔍
Under-claimed branches worth checking before filing
Smaller IPC counts point to specific sub-areas with lighter claim density inside this search.
AI-driven slice anomaly detection (G06N overlap)cross-slice traffic-control enforcement (G08G overlap)positioning-based slice access control (G01S overlap)billing-linked compliance triggers (G06Q overlap)optical-layer slice isolation at the WAN transport boundary
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
NEC Corporation1-50%
Ofinno, LLC0-100%
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson0
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.0-100%
PARK KYUNGMIN0
TALEBI FARD PEYMAN0
QIAO WEIHUA0
RYU JINSOOK0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Network Slicing Safety and Compliance 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 a claim space that is dense at the core and thinner at the edges. Two directions make sense depending on whether the goal is defensive clearance or new filing.

Map freedom-to-operate against the top co-assignee cluster

Before filing new isolation or compliance claims, check overlap with the PARK KYUNGMIN / TALEBI FARD PEYMAN / QIAO WEIHUA cluster and the most-cited records, since these define the densest prior art in this search.

Explore assignee overlap in Eureka

Test claim language against the under-claimed branches

The smaller IPC subclasses — G06N, G06Q, G01S, G08G — carry far fewer records than H04W or H04L, which is where a narrowly drafted first claim has the most room to stand.

Run a claim draft check in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Network Slicing Safety and Compliance 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 network slicing safety and compliance patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Network Slicing Safety and Compliance 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 Network Slicing Safety and Compliance in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole network slicing safety and compliance corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.