https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/radio-access-network-centralized-unit-distributed-unit-function-split-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-22 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Telecommunications

Radio Access Network CU/DU Function Split Patents

31 patent families on RAN CU/DU function split show one filer named on 6 families and a long tail of 20 single-or-double filers.

81
Published Records
31
Simple Patent Families
68%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

81 published records collapse into 31 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 55 of 81 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 31 simple patent families and 81 published records sit behind this CU/DU function-split search. Of the 81 records, 55 (68%) were granted and remained in force at retrieval.
  • ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM RES INST is named on 6 of the 31 families (19.4%), the highest single-row share. 20 of the 22 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • H04W (wireless communication networks) appears on 25 of the 31 families (80.6%). H04L (digital information transmission) follows at 14 families (45.2%).
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This page tracks patent filings matching the search string TAC:(("centralized unit" OR CU) AND ("distributed unit" OR DU) AND ("functional split" OR "function split")), which targets documents discussing the division of radio access network baseband processing between a centralized unit (CU) and a distributed unit (DU). The set runs to 31 simple patent families and 81 published records, with no date limit applied by the search itself. 68% of records were granted and in force at the 2026-10-22 retrieval date, a status that will keep shifting as more documents are examined or lapse.

With only 31 families in scope, this is a small pool. The numbers below describe exactly what the search returned rather than the state of CU/DU function-split technology as a whole, and the page is best read as a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished map.

Records and families in scope
  1. ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM RES INST6
  2. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD3
  3. FUJITSU LTD2
  4. ESSEN INNOVATION CO LTD2
  5. NAT YANG MING CHIAO TUNG UNIV1
  6. RAKUTEN MOBILE INC1
  7. NEC LAB EURO GMBH1
  8. MAVENIR SYST INC1
  9. CABLE TELEVISION LAB INC1
  10. ZTE CORP1

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. 2 rows in this table share the name ELECTRONICS (ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM RES INST, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (5 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 22 of the 22 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 22 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 Radio Access Network Centralized Unit Distributed Unit Function Split Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-22. Counts cover published records only and move 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
Data

Filing history and classification mix

The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing-trend chart counted in published records, and an IPC subclass breakdown counted in simple patent families.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

Records counted by earliest filing year ran from 2 in 2016 to a peak of 19 in 2018, tapering since. 2022 onward is shaded on the chart: recent years are still filling in because most routes take roughly 18 months to publish, and some PCT applications take up to 30 months, so the last few years understate eventual totals. No growth rate is shown here because the dataset is too thin to support one.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)051015202201620171920182019202020212022202320242025020262022 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 composition (share of 31 families)

H04W (wireless communication networks) is on 25 of the 31 families (80.6%), H04L (digital information transmission) on 14 (45.2%), and H04B (transmission, general) on 5 (16.1%). A family can carry more than one of these subclasses, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

IPC subclass composition (share of 31 families)H04W · Wireless communication networks2580.6%H04L · Digital information transmissi…1445.2%H04B · Transmission (general)516.1%A63F · Games & amusements13.2%G06F · Electric digital data processi…13.2%G06N · Computing based on AI models13.2%

Shares are the percentage of the 31 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 Radio Access Network Centralized Unit Distributed Unit Function Split Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-22. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Radio Access Network Centralized Unit Distributed Unit Function Split Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about radio access network centralized unit distributed unit function split patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Representative filing

A representative record from the result set

From the result set
US11515948B22022-11-29

US11515948B2, Function split structure for mobile convergence optical transmission network and method of providing coordinated multi-point technology using the same

ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Disclosed are a function split structure for a mobile convergence optical transmission network and a method of providing coordinated multi-point technology using the same. The mobile convergence optical transmission network may include a centralized unit (CU), a distributed unit (DU) connected to the CU, a transport node (TN) of an optical transmission network connected to the DU via a first interface, an aggregated unit (AU) connected to a transport unit (TU) of the optical transmission network via the first interface, and a radio unit (RU) connected to the AU via a second interface corresponding to a split structure for a lower layer than the first interface.This record is the first result returned under the database default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate what one filing in this dataset actually claims, not as representative of the field.

US11515948B2, patent drawing 1US11515948B2, 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 Radio Access Network Centralized Unit Distributed Unit Function Split Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-22. 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 →
Key figures

Reading the numbers

Three figures worth sitting with before drawing any conclusion from this dataset.

Largest single filer row
6 of 31 (19.4%)
families named

ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM RES INST

ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM RES INST is named on 6 of the 31 simple patent families in scope (19.4%), the highest share held by any single listed row. A second row beginning with a related name, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD, is listed separately and is not added to this figure.

Single-row share, not a combined total.
Spread across listed filers
20 of 22
filers at 2 families or fewer

Long tail of single- and double-filing entities

20 of the 22 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The filer list covers organisations only; filings held by named individuals are excluded from the list but remain inside the 31-family total.

Counted in simple patent families.
Legal status at retrieval
55 of 81 (68%)
records granted and in force

Status mix across published records

55 of the 81 published records were granted and in force at the 2026-10-22 retrieval date. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further.

Status changes continuously; this is a snapshot.
Classification reach
25 of 31 (80.6%)
families carrying H04W

H04W across the dataset

H04W (wireless communication networks) appears on 25 of the 31 families (80.6%), and H04L (digital information transmission) on 14 (45.2%). Because one family can carry both classes, these two shares overlap only as far as the smaller of the two reaches.

Shares sum above 100% because classes overlap.
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 radio access network centralized unit distributed unit function split 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 Radio Access Network Centralized Unit Distributed Unit Function Split Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-22. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this from here

This page reports what one search returned. Narrowing or widening the query, or pulling granted claims directly, is the next step for any of these threads.

Read the granted claims, not the abstract

An abstract and a family count cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Anyone assessing freedom to operate around CU/DU function split needs the claim set and file history for the specific record in question.

Open Patsnap Eureka

Check filer rows individually

Names that look related, such as the two ETRI/Samsung-style rows or the Rakuten and Mavenir pairs, are listed separately in this dataset and should not be combined into a single owner without independent confirmation.

Explore filer detail in Patsnap Eureka

Re-run with adjacent terms

A 31-family pool this size is sensitive to the exact search string. Broadening or adjusting the functional-split terminology may surface families this query missed.

Build a new search 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 Radio Access Network Centralized Unit Distributed Unit Function Split Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-22. 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 Radio Access Network Centralized Unit Distributed Unit Function Split Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-22. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Radio Access Network Centralized Unit Distributed Unit Function Split Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole radio access network centralized unit distributed unit function split 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:(("centralized unit" OR CU) AND ("distributed unit" OR DU) AND ("functional split" OR "function split"))

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 (H04W) carries 80.6% 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 81 records and 31 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 (5 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 22 of the 22 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 22 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 2026-10-22.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (55 of 81). 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.

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.