https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/software-defined-network-controller-flow-table-management-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Software Defined Networking

Software Defined Network Controller Flow Table Management Patents

Dataset of 2,403 patent families on SDN flow table and OpenFlow management, led by New H3C Tech with a long tail of filers.

5,175
Published Records
2,403
Simple Patent Families
4%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
58%
In Force at Cut-off

5,175 published records collapse into 2,403 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. NEW H3C TECH CO LTD is named on 103 of the 2,403 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 3,014 of 5,175 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 2,403 simple patent families and 5,175 published records sit in scope for the search string covering SDN, flow table, flow entry and OpenFlow terms.
  • New H3C Tech Co Ltd holds the largest single share named on 103 of the 2,403 families (4.3%), ahead of the fifth-placed filer at 51 and the tenth-placed filer at 30.
  • H04L carries the technology mix appearing on 93.4% of the 2,403 families, well above every other IPC subclass returned by this search.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape draws on a search for records tagged with software defined network or SDN combined with flow table, flow entry or OpenFlow terms. The search string sets no date limit, so the 2,403 simple patent families and 5,175 published records in scope reflect everything matching that string regardless of when it was filed. A family groups the same invention across the jurisdictions it was filed in; a published record counts each individual publication, so the same invention filed in several countries produces several records against one family.

Of the 5,175 records, 3,014 (58%) were granted and still in force at retrieval. That figure is a snapshot of legal status at the point of data pull, not a measure of how many filings succeeded or failed, since the remaining records span pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined status without a further breakdown.

Records, families and legal status at a glance
  1. NEW H3C TECH CO LTD103
  2. HUAWEI TECH CO LTD97
  3. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)78
  4. ZTE CORP67
  5. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEV LP51
  6. BEIJING UNIV OF POSTS & TELECOMM49
  7. STATE GRID CORPORATION OF CHINA39
  8. CHINA TELECOM CORP LTD35
  9. CHINA MOBILE COMM GRP CO LTD33
  10. XIDIAN UNIV30

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 (2 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 30 of the 98 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 98 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 Software Defined Network Controller Flow Table Management Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

The two views below use different units: the filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, while the technology composition is read against the 2,403 simple patent families.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

Recorded filings run from 52 records in 2012 to a peak of 870 in 2014, with 53 recorded for 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so that stretch of the chart understates eventual volume and should not be read as a decline.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)02505007501,0005220128702014201620182020202220245320262022 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 share of the 2,403 families

H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 93.4% of the 2,403 families in scope, the highest share of any subclass returned by this search. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC class, subclass shares shown on the chart add up to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive.

IPC subclass share of the 2,403 familiesH04L · Digital information transmissi…2,24493.4%G06F · Electric digital data processi…1877.8%H04W · Wireless communication networks1777.4%G06N · Computing based on AI models1074.5%H04B · Transmission (general)361.5%H04N · Pictorial communication (video…251.0%H04Q · Switching & selecting251.0%G06K · Data recognition & presentation241.0%Other843.5%

Shares are the percentage of the 2,403 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 Software Defined Network Controller Flow Table Management Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Software Defined Network Controller Flow Table Management Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about software defined network controller flow table management patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

A record from the result set

Example record
US20160234102A12016-08-11

Method and system for inserting an OpenFlow flow entry into a flow table using OpenFlow protocol

ALCATEL LUCENT

A method for inserting an OpenFlow flow entry into a flow table is disclosed. In the embodiment, the method involves receiving a flow mod message at an OpenFlow-enabled switch, the flow mod message including a cookie field, decoding an OpenFlow flow entry from the flow mod message, identifying a flow table from the cookie field, and inserting the decoded flow entry into the flow table.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate what a record in this space looks like, not to represent the field as a whole.

US20160234102A1, patent drawing 1US20160234102A1, patent drawing 2
View record detail

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 Software Defined Network Controller Flow Table Management Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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 filer and technology figures

These cards report individual figures from the dataset. None of them should be added together or read as a ranking beyond the single row or class each one names.

Largest filer
103 families
New H3C Tech Co Ltd

Single largest row by family count

New H3C Tech Co Ltd is named on 103 of the 2,403 simple patent families in scope, a 4.3% share. The fifth-placed filer holds 51 families and the tenth-placed filer holds 30; these figures describe each row on its own and are not additive.

Filer table, simple patent families
Filer spread
0 of 98
filers at 2 families or fewer

No listed filer sits at the bottom of the range

Among the 98 listed filers returned by this search, 0 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This list excludes filings held by named individuals, which remain inside every total and share on this page even though they are not shown as rows.

Filer table, simple patent families
Technology mix
93.4%
of families carry H04L

H04L share of the 2,403 families

H04L (digital information transmission) is tagged on 2,244 of the 2,403 simple patent families, 93.4%. Because families can carry multiple IPC classes, this share is not exclusive of the other subclasses returned by the same search.

IPC composition, simple patent families
Legal status
58%
of records in force

Records granted and in force at retrieval

3,014 of the 5,175 published records (58%) were granted and still in force on 2026-10-27, the retrieval date. This is a snapshot of status at that date; it changes continuously and does not indicate a success rate among filings.

Legal status, published records
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 software defined network controller flow table management 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 Software Defined Network Controller Flow Table Management Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this further

The figures here describe what this one search returned. Reading claim scope, checking a specific filer's portfolio, or tracking a subclass over time calls for tools built around the underlying records.

Read claims, not counts

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Pull the claim set directly for any record before drawing a freedom-to-operate conclusion from it.

Explore full claims in Eureka

Track filers individually

Filer rows in this dataset are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries. Monitoring a specific organisation calls for tracking its exact row, not a combined group figure.

Set up filer tracking in 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 Software Defined Network Controller Flow Table Management Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on SDN flow table patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Software Defined Network Controller Flow Table Management Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Software Defined Network Controller Flow Table Management Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole software defined network controller flow table management 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:(("software defined network" OR SDN) AND ("flow table" OR "flow entry" OR OpenFlow))

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 93.4% 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 5,175 records and 2,403 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 (2 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 30 of the 98 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 98 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 2026-10-27.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (3,014 of 5,175). 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.