Book a demo

Network Timing & Synchronization Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026

Network Timing & Synchronization Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/network-timing-and-synchronization-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Telecommunications & Next-Gen Networks
Network Timing & Synchronization Patents: Who Holds the Ground and Where It's Still Open
  • 26.3% sits with five companies. The top 5 assignees combined hold 2,810 of the 10,666 records in scope — concentrated, but not a monopoly; the other 73.7% is spread across a long tail.
  • Filing has cooled from its 2019 peak. Filings ran from 462 in 2017 to a peak of 591 in 2019, then declined; the 2021→2024 span alone dropped 22% (557 to 435), the most recent complete comparison available.
  • Wireless and digital transmission dominate the claim map. H04W and H04L together touch the majority of records (45.5% and 41.9% respectively), while AI-based computing (G06N) sits at just 5.6% — a narrow, likely under-built bridge between timing and model-driven network control.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
10.7K
Published Records
26%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-22%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (557 records) with 2024 (435) — 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 10,666 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

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

What this landscape covers

This dataset tracks patent activity at the intersection of network synchronization and precision timing with the infrastructure that depends on it — packet routing, network function virtualization, topology management, timing-source selection and signal transmission. The search combines timing-specific terms with network-infrastructure terms, so the scope is deliberately narrower than either field alone: it captures claims where timing mechanics and network operation are described together, not every timing patent or every networking patent in isolation.

10,666 published records fall inside this scope between 2015 and the 2026-08-31 cut-off. Because publication trails filing by roughly eighteen months, the last one to two years of the trend understate real filing activity and should be read as provisional rather than declining.

Filing activity and technology composition, 2017–2026
  1. 1QUALCOMM INC1,228
  2. 2TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)629
  3. 3STRONG FORCE IOT PORTFOLIO 2016 LLC443
  4. 4DIGITAL GLOBAL SYSTEMS INC302
  5. 5LG ELECTRONICS INC208
  6. 6STRONG FORCE VCN PORTFOLIO 2019 LLC198
  7. 7HUAWEI TECH CO LTD189
  8. 8INTEL CORP137
  9. 9SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD132
  10. 10APPLE INC127
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Network Timing & Synchronization Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. 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 10,666-record corpus: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim language.

Filing trend, 2017–2026

Filings rose from 462 in 2017 to a peak of 591 in 2019, then eased; the clearest complete-year comparison, 2021 to 2024, shows a 22% decline (557 to 435). 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under the publication lag and should not be read as a continuing drop.

Filing trend, 2017–20260150300450600462201720185912019202020212022202320242025682026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

IPC subclass coverage

H04W (wireless communication networks, 45.5% of records) and H04L (digital information transmission, 41.9%) anchor the field. H04B (transmission general, 21.2%) and H04J (multiplex communication, 16.1%) follow at meaningfully lower density. G06F, G01S, H04Q and G06N each sit under 11%, with G06N (AI-based computing) the thinnest of the eight at 5.6% — since a record can carry multiple classes, these shares sum past 100% and each is read against the full 10,666-record base.

IPC subclass coverageH04W · Wireless communication networks4,85245.5%H04L · Digital information transmissi…4,46741.9%H04B · Transmission (general)2,26221.2%H04J · Multiplex communication1,71316.1%G06F · Electric digital data processi…1,06910.0%G01S · Radar, sonar & positioning8417.9%H04Q · Switching & selecting6275.9%G06N · Computing based on AI models5985.6%Other4,93646.3%

Shares are the percentage of the 10,666 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 Timing & Synchronization Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Network Timing & Synchronization Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about network timing & synchronization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key Patents

Most-cited records and a representative filing

Representative filing
WO2019165001A12019-08-29

WO2019165001A1 — Method for timing source selection in a network

TRABUS TECHNOLOGIES

Filed by Trabus Technologies, this application describes transceiver units that broadcast their own identifier alongside the identifier of whichever unit they currently rely on for network time, letting each unit select its timing source from among peers based on those broadcasts.The mechanism is peer-broadcast timing-source selection rather than a fixed master-clock hierarchy — a distinction that matters for anyone designing decentralized timing without a single reference node.

WO2019165001A1 — patent drawing 1WO2019165001A1 — patent drawing 2
View full filing
Highest-cited records in scope
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US6611537B1Synchronous network for digital media streams2,481
2US7295548B2Method and system for disaggregating audio/visual components1,562
3US20170331670A1Network Architecture, Methods, and Devices for a Wireless Communications Network1,307
4US20070198656A1Methods and servers for establishing a connection between a client system and a virtual machine executing in …1,211
5US20170331577A1Network Architecture, Methods, and Devices for a Wireless Communications Network1,171
6US20040095907A1Method and apparatus for optimization of wireless multipoint electromagnetic communication networks1,103
7US6611755B1Vehicle tracking, communication and fleet management system1,023
8US20190339688A1Methods and systems for data collection, learning, and streaming of machine signals for analytics and mainten…974
9US20070171921A1Methods and systems for interacting, via a hypermedium page, with a virtual machine executing in a terminal s…870
10US20110219208A1Multi-petascale highly efficient parallel supercomputer827

Citation counts inside this corpus favour older filings by construction — they measure influence accumulated over time, not current technical 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 Timing & Synchronization Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. 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 say about strategy

Three read-throughs from the concentration, momentum and citation data — useful for deciding where a new filing has room and where it does not.

Concentration
26.3% / top 5
share of 10,666 records

The top of the field is dense, the rest is not

Five assignees hold 2,810 of the 10,666 records in scope, and the top 10 extend that to 33.7% (3,593 records). That leaves nearly two-thirds of the corpus distributed across the remaining ranked companies and unranked filers — a genuine long tail, not a two-player market.

Ranking covers 100 companies; figures are shares of all records, not of the ranked subset.
Momentum
-86% YoY
Digital Global Systems, latest year

Even active recent filers are pulling back

Digital Global Systems filed 19 records in the latest year, down 86% year over year; Qualcomm and the other tracked leaders show comparable double-digit declines. Read this alongside the publication lag — some of the drop is filings still working through the pipeline rather than a real halt.

Recent-year counts are the most exposed to publication lag in the whole dataset.
Composition
5.6% G06N
share of 10,666 records

AI-based timing control is a thin layer, not a gap

G06N (AI-model computing) appears in 5.6% of records versus 45.5% for H04W — present, but far from where claim density sits. That gap between an established base (wireless networks, digital transmission) and a barely-touched adjacent method (AI-driven timing decisions) is where freedom-to-operate is most likely to still exist.

Class shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple IPC codes.
Citation profile
2,481 citations
top-cited record, US6611537B1

The most-cited work predates the current filing wave

The highest-cited record in the corpus, US6611537B1 on synchronous network streaming, carries 2,481 citations accumulated over a long window — a sign of foundational influence, not evidence that its claims are still the active frontier.

Citation counts favour older records within any fixed search corpus.
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 timing & synchronization patent landscape, 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 Timing & Synchronization Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Who's filing

The assignee landscape

A ranking of 100 companies drawn from the full 10,666-record corpus. The leader holds 1,228 records; by fifth place that falls to 208, and by tenth to 127 — a steep early drop that flattens into a long tail.

Leader position
1,228 records
leading assignee

One filer sits well ahead of the pack

The top-ranked assignee's 1,228 records are roughly six times the count at fifth place (208), pointing to a company that has built a large, defensible position across the timing-and-network-infrastructure claim space rather than one that filed opportunistically.

Based on the full ranked-assignee table, 100 companies.
Mid-table drop-off
208 → 127
5th to 10th place

The gap narrows fast after the leader

Between fifth and tenth place, record counts fall from 208 to 127 — a much gentler slope than the drop from first to fifth. That shape suggests a competitive second tier rather than a handful of dominant incumbents locking out new entrants.

Figures are per-assignee record counts, not percentages.
Co-filing pattern
10 pairs
co-assignee relationships tracked

Co-assignment is rare and inventor-anchored

Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest links are between one major filer and named individual inventors rather than between two corporate entities — this field is largely filed solo, not through joint ventures.

Strongest pair recorded 16 shared records.
🔍
Under-claimed sub-areas worth a closer look
Branches where filing density is visibly thinner than the core wireless and transmission classes
AI-assisted timing-source selectionRadar/positioning-linked clock sync (G01S overlap)Switching-fabric timing coordination (H04Q overlap)Multiplex-layer time distribution (H04J edge cases)Edge-compute synchronization (G06F overlap)
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
DIGITAL GLOBAL SYSTEMS INC19-86%
Qualcomm Inc.3-84%
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.2-33%
Strong Force IoT Portfolio 2016, LLC1-83%
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.1-67%
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)0-100%
LG Electronics Inc.0
Strong Force VCN Portfolio 2019, LLC0-100%
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Network Timing & Synchronization Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next

Where to take this

The landscape shows concentration at the top and clear composition gaps. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going one level deeper than the aggregate figures shown here.

Map claims against the thin classes

G06N and H04Q carry the lowest record shares in this corpus. Before filing in AI-assisted timing control or switching-layer coordination, check what specific claim language already exists in those subclasses rather than relying on the class-level share alone.

Explore the technology in Eureka

Watch the leader's recent filings, not just its total

A 1,228-record leader with a steep recent-year decline is not necessarily retreating — publication lag distorts the last two years for every assignee. Track filing behaviour at the application level to see whether the slowdown is real or a reporting artefact.

Track assignee activity in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Network Timing & Synchronization Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on network timing and synchronization patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Network Timing & Synchronization Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Network Timing & Synchronization Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole network timing & synchronization patent landscape 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.