https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/network-function-virtualization-security-orchestration-chaining-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-16 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Cybersecurity & Digital Trust

Network Function Virtualization Security Orchestration Chaining Patents

Dataset of 30 patent families and 85 records on NFV service-chain security orchestration, led by Huawei with a long tail of single-filing entities.

85
Published Records
30
Simple Patent Families
67%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

85 published records collapse into 30 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 57 of 85 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 30 simple patent families and 85 published records sit in scope for this search. Across however many filing years the records span, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • Huawei Tech Co Ltd is named on 6 of the 30 families. The highest single-row share at 20.0%, with 18 of the 20 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families each.
  • H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 23 of the 30 families. A 76.7% share, ahead of G06F at 33.3% and H04W at 20.0%.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This page reports results for a search built around network function virtualization (or NFV), service chain or function chaining, combined with security or orchestrat* terms, run against patent title/abstract/claims text. It returns 30 simple patent families (de-duplicated inventions) represented by 85 published records across the receiving offices that published them. No date limit was set on the query, so the result set reflects whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a chosen window.

Thirty families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a market or an industry, a term that misses a filer's phrasing will simply leave that filer out, so absence here should be read as a gap in the search rather than a gap in filing. Treat this page as a starting point for a deeper search, not a finished map.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. HUAWEI TECH CO LTD6
  2. INTEL CORP5
  3. KRATOS INTEGRAL HOLDINGS LLC2
  4. ADTRAN NETWORKS SE2
  5. NEC LAB EURO GMBH1
  6. JUNIPER NETWORKS INC1
  7. RUIJIE NETWORKS CO LTD1
  8. KT CORP1
  9. INCOGNITO SOFTWARE SYSTEMS INC1
  10. NORTHEASTERN UNIV AT QINHUANGDAO1

Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (3 here); that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 20 of the 20 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 20 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Network Function Virtualization Security Orchestration Chaining Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data

Filings, offices and technology split

The figures below are counted two ways, published records for filing activity and receiving offices, simple patent families for the filer and technology breakdowns. The denominator is named with each figure; they are not interchangeable.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

Records run from 7 in 2014 up to a peak of 15 in 2016, down to 2 in 2026. The stretch from 2022 onward is still filling in as later-filed records continue to publish, so recent years understate eventual totals; no growth rate is shown because the series is too thin to support one.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)0481115720142015152016201720182019202020212022202320242025220262022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two.

IPC subclass coverage (share of 30 families)

H04L covers 76.7% of families, G06F 33.3% and H04W 20.0%. One family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add to more than 100%; other subclasses on the chart sit below the share needed to discuss here.

IPC subclass coverage (share of 30 families)H04L · Digital information transmissi…2376.7%G06F · Electric digital data processi…1033.3%H04W · Wireless communication networks620.0%G06N · Computing based on AI models26.7%H04B · Transmission (general)13.3%

Shares are the percentage of the 30 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Network Function Virtualization Security Orchestration Chaining Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Network Function Virtualization Security Orchestration Chaining Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about network function virtualization security orchestration chaining patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Illustrative Record

A record from the result set

First record returned (database default order)
US10862823B22020-12-08

Method for service implementation in network function virtualization (NFV) system and communications unit

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

The abstract describes a method for establishing an NFV network service chain: a first communications unit obtains a service chain rule indicating what service processing is needed, derives information about a service chain, including which virtualized network function (VNF) the service route passes through for that processing, and sends routing and resource information accordingly.US10862823B2, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., published 2020-12-08. Shown because it is the first record returned under default database ordering, not because it is the most cited, newest or broadest filing in scope.

US10862823B2, patent drawing 1US10862823B2, patent drawing 2
View full record

Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Network Function Virtualization Security Orchestration Chaining Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move 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

Reading the numbers

Three figures from the dataset, reported as counted, no ranking or interpretation added beyond what the numbers themselves show.

Scope
30 families / 85 records
families vs. published records

Two different counts of the same pool

30 simple patent families are represented by 85 published records across the offices that published them. The same invention filed in multiple countries adds more than one record, so the record count is not a count of inventions.

No date limit was applied to the search.
Filers
6 of 30 families (20.0%)
largest single-row share

Huawei's single-row share

Huawei Tech Co Ltd is named on 6 of the 30 families in scope, a 20.0% share. 18 of the 20 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. Filer rows are not mutually exclusive, a family can name more than one filer, so rows cannot be added into a combined share.

20 organisation-only filers are listed; individual inventors are excluded from this list but remain in the totals.
Technology
76.7% of families
H04L subclass share

H04L coverage across the pool

H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 23 of the 30 families, 76.7%. G06F appears on 10 (33.3%) and H04W on 6 (20.0%). Because one family can carry several IPC subclasses, these shares sum to more than 100% and are not a partition of the pool.

Shares are against the 30-family total, not against each other.
Legal status
57 of 85 records (67%)
granted and in force at retrieval

In-force status at the retrieval date

57 of the 85 published records were granted and in force when this data was retrieved on 2026-10-16. The remainder cover pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undeterminable status, not broken out individually here.

In-force status changes continuously and is not a measure of claim strength or quality.
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 function virtualization security orchestration chaining patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Network Function Virtualization Security Orchestration Chaining Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next

Taking this further

This page reports counts from one search string. Narrowing or widening that string, or reading the underlying claim sets, is the next step for any decision that depends on scope rather than volume.

Read the granted claims directly

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent covers. If a specific filing matters to a decision, the claim set itself is the only reliable source.

Open Patsnap Eureka

Re-run the search with adjacent terms

This dataset reflects one search string with no date limit. Related phrasing for service chaining, orchestration or NFV security could surface families this query missed.

Explore in Patsnap Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Network Function Virtualization Security Orchestration Chaining Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Network Function Virtualization Security Orchestration Chaining Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Network Function Virtualization Security Orchestration Chaining Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole network function virtualization security orchestration chaining patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean

Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:

TAC:(("network function virtualization" OR NFV) AND ("service chain" OR "function chaining") AND (security OR orchestrat*))

Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field. One subclass (H04L) carries 76.7% of the patent families, so this search returned a classification-tight set.

What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 85 records and 30 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.

Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list (3 of them here). Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 20 of the 20 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 20 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included

Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-16.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (57 of 85). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka

Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level

Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.

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 limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. 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, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records 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.

The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.

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

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.