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/network-slicing-safety-and-compliance-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Telecom & WirelessNetwork 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.
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
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.
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.
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 EurekaKey patents
The most-cited and most representative filings
Representative filing
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.
Highest-cited records in this dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20200259896A1 | Industrial Automation with 5G and Beyond | 742 |
| 2 | US20190182875A1 | User Plane Function Selection For Isolated Network Slice | 233 |
| 3 | US20190394833A1 | Multi Access Packet/Protocol Data Unit Session | 221 |
| 4 | US20200314701A1 | Handover For Closed Access Group | 156 |
| 5 | US20200053828A1 | Network Initiated UPF sessions Transfer | 152 |
| 6 | US20200107213A1 | Packet Duplication by Core Network | 143 |
| 7 | US20190306251A1 | Data Transmission over User Plane for Cellular IoT | 135 |
| 8 | US20230180017A1 | Provisioning radio-based networks with locality rules | 133 |
| 9 | US20190335392A1 | 5G Policy Control for Restricted Local Operator Services | 132 |
| 10 | US20200305118A1 | Wireless Communications for Communication Setup/Response | 126 |
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
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.
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.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| NEC Corporation | 1 | -50% |
| Ofinno, LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson | 0 | — |
| Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| PARK KYUNGMIN | 0 | — |
| TALEBI FARD PEYMAN | 0 | — |
| QIAO WEIHUA | 0 | — |
| RYU JINSOOK | 0 | — |
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 EurekaTest 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 EurekaSource: 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
In this dataset it means a patent family whose claims combine network slicing terminology (network slicing, 5G network slicing, or RAN slicing) with slice isolation, security compliance, or regulatory compliance language. That combination captures mechanisms for keeping virtual network slices separated from one another and for proving to a regulator or auditor that a given slice meets required security standards. It excludes general 5G architecture patents that do not specifically address isolation or compliance mechanisms.
Filings rose from 81 in 2017 to a peak of 241 in 2020, then eased toward 170 by 2022 and 17 in the still-partial 2026 year. This pattern is typical of a claim space that filled up around a specific technical standard window — likely tied to early 5G standalone core deployment — rather than one still expanding. Publication lag of roughly 18 months means the most recent one to two years always look thinner than they eventually will once pending applications publish.
Within this specific search, NEC shows the only recorded latest-year filing among the named assignees, at a reduced rate of one filing, down 50% year-on-year. Ofinno, Ericsson, and Huawei all show zero filings in the latest year, with Ofinno and Huawei recording a -100% year-on-year drop from prior activity. This reflects filing behaviour captured by this narrow search string specifically, not necessarily each company's total 5G patent output.
The IPC composition shows heavy concentration in H04W (932 records) and H04L (420), with much thinner coverage in G06N (AI-based network management, 21 records), G06Q (billing and compliance administration, 17), G01S (positioning, 14), and G08G (traffic control, 10). Claims that link slice isolation to AI-driven anomaly detection, positioning-based access control, or traffic-control enforcement sit in noticeably less crowded territory than core radio-access isolation claims.
US20230032806A1, assigned to Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC and published 2023-02-02, claims optical-layer slicing of a wide area network transport segment to extend RAN-level slicing end-to-end to application servers in the cloud. Anyone drafting claims around WAN-layer slice isolation on a discrete-wavelength basis needs to check this filing closely, since it already covers the core mechanism of extending RAN slicing through the transport network. Alternatives that isolate at a different network layer, such as packet-level VPN-style tagging rather than optical wavelength allocation, are more likely to sit outside its claim scope.
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.
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.