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 →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 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 In force = 57 of 85 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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 EurekaThe 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.


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.
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 →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 →Three figures from the dataset, reported as counted, no ranking or interpretation added beyond what the numbers themselves show.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 EurekaThis 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 EurekaThis specific search returns 30 simple patent families, represented by 85 published records across the offices that published them. The search string has no date limit, so this reflects every matching record the database holds regardless of filing year, not a chosen window. Because the string targets a fairly specific combination of terms (network function virtualization or NFV, service chain or function chaining, plus security or orchestration), it will miss filings that use different phrasing for the same idea, so the true number of relevant patents filed anywhere could be higher than what this query surfaced.
Huawei Tech Co Ltd is named on 6 of the 30 simple patent families in scope, a 20.0% share, which is the highest single-row figure in this dataset. Beyond that, 18 of the 20 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so most of the listed organisations appear only once or twice. The filer list excludes individual inventors (who remain in the totals but not in the table), and it is not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and its subsidiaries would appear as separate, unsummed rows.
The IPC subclass breakdown shows H04L (digital information transmission) on 23 of the 30 families, 76.7%, the highest share recorded. G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 10 families (33.3%) and H04W (wireless communication networks) on 6 (20.0%). A single family can carry more than one of these classes, so the shares add to more than 100% and should be read individually against the 30-family denominator, not against each other as a split.
57 of the 85 published records, 67%, were granted and in force as of the retrieval date, 2026-10-16. The remaining records cover a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undeterminable status that is not broken out further in this dataset. In-force status is a snapshot that changes continuously as renewals come due and applications progress, and it says nothing about the scope or strength of any individual claim.
This page cannot support a trend reading. The published-records series runs from 7 in 2014 to a peak of 15 in 2016 and down to 2 in 2026, but records filed from around 2022 onward are still in the process of publishing, so the most recent years understate their eventual counts. With only 30 families in the full dataset, year-to-year movements are too small a sample to read as growth, a slowdown or a maturity signal, and no growth rate is shown on this page for that reason.
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.
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.
This page