Cyber Creative Institute Co. Ltd.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents
declared to ETSI
Version 2.0

October 2012

Table of contents
1.Objectives. .............................................................................................................................. 1
2. Survey results ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Identifying the patents subject to analysis ........................................................................... 3
2.2Application trends ................................................................................................................. 5(1) Number of patents declared by each company ........................................................................ 5(2) Breakdown by application year ............................................................................................ 10(3) Breakdown by company and application year ........................................................................ 11(4) Breakdown by application country ....................................................................................... 13(5) Breakdown by company and application country ................................................................... 14
2.3Evaluation of essentiality to standards ................................................................................. 16(1) Evaluation method ............................................................................................................... 16(2) Selection of patents for evaluation ....................................................................................... 17(3) Essentiality evaluation results ............................................................................................ 19(4) Evaluation results for each company .................................................................................... 20(5) Essentiality ratios based on all the evaluated patents .......................................................... 21(6) Registration ratios of evaluated patents ............................................................................... 21(7) Essentiality ratios based on registered patents .................................................................... 22
3. Estimation of the gross numbers of "essential" patents .......................................................... 24(1) Estimation based on all the evaluated patents ..................................................................... 24(2) Estimation based on registered patents ................................................................................ 25(3) Main features of the major companies .................................................................................. 26
4. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 29
References ................................................................................................................................ 31
Appendix 1- ........................................................................................................................... 32

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents
declared to ETSI
Version 2.0

1 Objectives
LTE (Long Term Evolution) is the precursor technology for the 4 t h generation mobile
communication services, which succeeds the 3 r d generation services that are now widelyused. In Japan, NTT DOCOMO launched its LTE service in December, 2010, under the nameof Xi (pronounced “Crossy”). Other companies have started their services as well, or haveannounced their service release in the near future 1 .
As for the 3 r d generation mobile communication systems, mobile carriers adopted
different technical standards for their networks, resulting in incompatibility problems. LTE
is to be used as a single international standard for the 4 t h generation mobile services andwill remedy these problems. Standardization of LTE, like that of W-CDMA, has been being
carried out in 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project). 3GPP is an international
standards development project organized by the standards developing organizations invarious countries, such as ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) in
Europe and ARIB (Association of Radio Industries and Businesses) in Japan.
Telecom companies may acquire patents related to the forthcoming standards. For apatented technology to be adopted in standards, its holder has to declare to theorganizations in respective country their willingness to make its licenses available to allthird parties under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms 2 . This paper
aims to evaluate the “patenting power” of participating companies by studying thosepatents (including patent applications) that are declared to ETSI as being essential to LTE
standards.
Although ETSI is a European organization, not only European companies but many nonEuropean ones have declared LTE-essential patents to ETSI, because Europe has long beena large telecom market and has fostered many prominent companies. As such, the number ofpatents declared by each company should be an important indicator of the company’s“patenting power.”
Trial/commercial LTE services have been launched or are planned by Telia Sonera (in December, 2009),
NTT DOCOMO (in December, 2010), Vodafone (in 2010), Verizon Wireless (in 2010), Softbank(after 2011),
AT&T (in 2011), Telecom Italia (in 2011~2012), KDDI (in 2012), T-Mobile (in2012) and Orange (in 2012).
2 When declaring an essential patent to standards developing organizations such as ETSI or ARIB, theholder is requested to choose one of the following three licensing options:(1) Grant licenses free of charge (or disclaim patent rights)(2) Grant licenses to other parties on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions.
(3) Others (choose neither of the above)
The second option above is called the FRAND condition.
1

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

11. Objectives
To evaluate true “patenting power”, the number of LTE-essential patents, as have been
declared to and listed by ETSI, is not a good measure, due to the following two reasons.
-Duplicate count of patentsETSI list contains multiple patents that share a common priority, such as provisional
applications in the U.S., divisional applications, or applications to other countries.
Divisional applications, which have different scopes, may well be counted separately. But,in most cases, it is more appropriate to count the related patents as a single patent family.
-

Difference in declaration policy of each company
According to ETSI policy, companies can declare essential patents at their discretion.
ETSI does not confirm or deny that the declared patents are really essential. As a result,the definition of relevance to the standard varies, resulting in considerable difference in thenumber of the declared patents.
Therefore, this survey estimates the number of truly “essential” patents held by eachcompany, taking the following processes:- to identify the effective number of declared patents by grouping related patents into afamily,- to select patents to be evaluated from all the declared patents,- to estimate essentiality ratio (the percentage of standard-relevant patents within all theevaluated patents for each company, and- to derive the gross number of essential patents, for each company, by multiplying thenumber of declared patents by the essentiality ratio.
This survey is an updated version of the previous report 3 and is based on theinformation obtained from the latest ETSI declaration list.

3

http://www.cybersoken.com/xxx

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

22.Survey results

2 Survey results
2.1 Identifying the patents subject to analysis
The list of essential, or potentially essential, patents declared to ETSI (hereinafterreferred to as “original list”), which was uploaded in March, 2012, was obtained from the
ETSI website 4 . An excerpt of this list is shown in Appendix.
The original list simply lists the information notified by companies as provided. As aresult, it is difficult to meaningfully compare the number of patents held by each company
based on raw data in the original list, due to the following reasons:- a group of patents, that have been derived from a single patent or applied in different
countries, are listed as separate entities, and- undisclosed patents, such as provisional applications 5 in the U.S., are included in thelist.
To overcome these difficulties, we have identified the patents (including patentapplications 6 ) relevant to our analysis out of the original list in the following way.
Specifically, patents to be surveyed have been extracted from the original list in thefollowing manner to create a target list for analysis:(a) Extracting only those patents that- contains the term “LTE” or “SAE” in the “Essential to projects” column, or- contains the term “TS36”, “TS24.301”, “TS23.401”, “TS23.272”, or “TS33.401” in the“Essential to standards YES to ETSI FRAND license” column, provided that the term
“3GPP” is contained in the “Essential to projects” column.
(b) Leaving only one patent among those that have common application number or
publication number.
(c) Deleting patents that were not published as of May, 2012.
(d) Identifying patent families using a commercial patent database 7 for each patentobtained by the above processes of (a) to (c).

http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_sr/000300_000399/000314/
A “provisional application” is an application made on the assumption that a formal patent application
will be made at a later time. It was introduced in the U.S. in 1995 in order to entitle inventors to theright of priority for national patent. In the provisional application system, formal patent claims are notrequired because there is no intention to claim any patent rights. In order to mature it into an issued
patent the applicant must file or request a formal patent application within one year. Otherwise, theprovisional application is considered to have been abandoned.
6 Not only registered patents but also patent applications are studied in this survey to set the proper
scope of work. In a legal sense, “patents”, as stated in the title of this paper, legally refer only to thosealready registered.
7 PatBase was used for this purpose. PatBase is a product of RWS and Minesoft, both based in UK.
http://www.rws.com/EN/PatBase.html
http://www.iac-academy.co.jp/patbase/index.html
45

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

3

2.Survey results(e) Representing the patents belonging to the same family by one patent 8 .
As the result, 5,013 patents, or patent families to be exact, have been identified.
This approach makes it possible to count the number of declared patents without being
affected by such procedural factors as applications to foreign countries, divisional
applications 9 or continuation applications 1 0 .

8 In PatBase, patents are grouped into families if they contain one or more common priorities with otherpatent(s).In this study, those patents that have the same Family Number (FN) and the same Priority
Number corresponding to the Earliest Priority Date are regarded to form a family and they are treatedas one, where the Priority Number includes a VLF (Very Large Family) number. VLF (Very Large Family)
number refers to the identification number given to a certain portion of a large family (with more than
130 patents) to indicate that it is a portion of the family that has been split.
9 A “divisional application” refers to an application where a parent application describing more than one
invention is split into one or more applications each claiming only a single invention. By utilizing thisprocedure the applicant can obtain rights for each divisional application which may facilitate thequicker granting of patent rights for certain applications.
1 0 A "continuation application" refers to an application that is based on an original patent application(often referred to as a parent application), and has the same priority date and specification as the parent.
Continuation applications are often filed so that an applicant may pursue claims to inventions that weredisclosed but not allowed in the parent application or may want to pursue additional claims to theparent application. It is a US specific system where the filing date of the parent application can bepreserved, provided that no additional statements are made. In Japanese patent system, this is includedin the divisional application category.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

4

2.Survey results
2.2 Application trends(1) Number of patents declared by each company
Figure 1 shows the number of patents (counted on a patent-family-basis; the same
applies hereafter) declared by each company for each year. Declaration years were takenfrom the “Declaration Dates” column in the list. The names of the declaring companies weretaken from the “Declaring Companies” column and translated to effective company names,
as shown in Table 1. Related company names were mapped to a corresponding effective
name. When there were multiple names in the “Declaring Companies” column, left-most one
was taken. A total of 43 companies have been identified. One of the noteworthy points, ascompared to the previous survey result, is that CATT has newly appeared in the list andtaken the 8th position.
Some of the companies started to make declarations as early as 2007 when thestandards were still being developed. However, on the whole, the number of declaring
companies started to increase after 2009 when standards were fixed and the commercial
developments got into full swing. Around that time, the numbers of patents declared byeach company also sharply increased. Samsung, Huawei, LG, NEC, and TI increased theirdeclarations in 2011. Sharp, InnvativeSonic, HTC, and CATT newly came in the list in 2011.
Samsung and ZTE have been making declarations even in 2012 and are anticipated tocontinue their declarations.
There seems to be two reasons for these companies to take their actions. One is that
FRAND-based patent declarations are mandatory for the patents to be used in standards.
The other is that, taking advantage of the openness of the declaration list, companies see it
as a good measure to indicate their strategic IP power to the public.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

5

2.Survey results

Figure 1 – Declared numbers of patents by company

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

6

2.Survey results
Table 1 – Declaring companies

Name in “Declaring companies” column

Effective
Company NameCountry
Code

Airbiquity Incorporated

Airbiquity

US

Alcatel-Lucent

FR

Andrew LLC

Andrew LLC

US

AT&T

AT&T

US

BROADCOM CORPORATION

Broadcom

US

China Academy of Telecommunications Technology (CATT)

CATT

CN

DeutscheTelekom

DE

Ericsson

SE

ETRI

KR

FranceTelecom

FR

ALCATEL-LUCENT
Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell Co., Ltd
ALCATEL-LUCENT|Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell Co., Ltd

Deutsche Telekom AG
Telekom Deutschland GmbH
Telekom Deutschland GmbH|TIP Communications LLC|Research in
Motion Limited
Ericsson AB
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson|Research in Motion Limited
ETRI
France Telecom
France Telecom|TDF SAS
Freescale Semiconductor Inc.

FreescaleUS

Gemplus SA

Gemplus

FR

Hewlett-Packard, Centre de Competences France

HP

FR

HTC Corporation

HTC

TW

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

HuaweiCN

iCODING Technology Inc.

iCODINGUSINFINEON TECHNOLOGIESInfineonDE

InnovativeSonic

TW

Intel

US

InterDigitalUS

IPR Licensing Inc.

IPR Licensing

US

Koninklijke KPN N.V.

Koninklijke

NL

LG

KR

MarvellBM

Motorola

US

Innovative Sonic Corporation
Innovative Sonic Ltd.
Intel Corporation
InterDigital Patent Holdings Inc.
InterDigital Technology Corp.

LG Electronics Inc.
LG Electronics Inc.|Qualcomm Incorporated
Marvell Switzerland S.A.R.L
MOTOROLA Inc
MOTOROLA Inc|Motorola Mobility Inc.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

7

2.Survey results
Motorola Mobility Inc.
NEC Corporation

NEC

JP

Nokia CorpFI

Nokia Siemens

FI

Nortel Networks Ltd

NortelCA

NTT DOCOMO, INC

NTT DOCOMOJPNOKIA Corporation
NOKIA Corporation|Motorola Mobility Inc.
NOKIA Corporation|Qualcomm Incorporated
NOKIA MOBILE PHONES|NOKIA Corporation
NOKIA Corporation|Nokia Siemens Networks Oy
Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG
Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG|NOKIA Corporation|Nokia
Siemens Networks Oy
Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG|Nokia Siemens Networks
Oy
Nokia Siemens Networks Oy

Panasonic Corporation

Panasonic

JP

PicoChip Limited

PicoChipUK

Qualcomm Incorporated

Qualcomm

US

Research in Motion Limited

RIM

CA

Samsung Electronics Co, LTD

SamsungKR

Sharp Corporation

Sharp

JP

Siemens AG

Siemens

DE

Sony Corporation

Sony

JP

TELECOM ITALIA S.p.A.

Telecom Italia

IT

Texas Instruments Inc.

TI

US

TruePosition Inc.

TruePosition

US

VoiceAge Corporation

VoiceAgeCNZTE Corporation

ZTE

CN

NB) Country code represents the country name where the company’s head office islocated. Abbreviations are as follows:
BM: BERMUDA, CA: CANADA, CN: CHINA, DE: GERMANY, FI: FINLAND, FR: FRANCE,
IT: ITALY, JP: JAPAN, KR: KOREA, NL: NETHERLANDS, SE: SWEDEN, TW: TWIWAN,
UK:UNITED KINGDOM, US: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Figure 2 is a pie chart showing the percentages of declared patents of companies listed
in Figure 1. In order to avoid the chart becoming crowded, twelve companies with less thanfour declarations have been grouped into “Others”, namely Telecom Italia, VoiceAge,
FranceTelecom, Infineon, TruePosition, AT&T, Broadcom, Gemplus, HP, iCODING,
Koninklijke, and PicoChip.
Samsung has the largest percentage (about 15%) and is followed by Qualcomm, Huawei,
and Nokia. The figure shows that declarations are not just limited to a few particularcompanies but many companies, including Asian companies, have made fairly comparable

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

8

2.Survey results
numbers of declarations.

Figure 2 - Percentages of declared patents by company

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

92.Survey results(2) Breakdown by application year
Figure 3 shows the numbers of declared patents for each year when the patents werefiled The horizontal axis shows the earliest priority year (i.e. the year in which theapplication of particular invention was filed for the first time, irrespective of the country it
was filed) and the vertical axis shows the number of patents. The current survey results areshown overlaid on the previous results.
(a) A good proportion of declared patents were filed after 2005, the year when LTE
standardization activities began. Especially, those that were filed between 2006 and2008 are significant. This period coincides with the time when LTE specifications had
been being developed before the first version of LTE standards were released in March,
2008.
(b) The number of declared patents filed in around 1999 is not negligible. The reason forthis seems to be that there are common features between the LTE standards and the
UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) standards that had been studied
earlier as 3 r d generation mobile communication systems.
(c) The number of declared patents that were filed in 2009 and 2010 have increased, as
compared to our previous survey, and the number is expected to grow.

Figure 3 – The number of declared patents for each application year

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

10

2.Survey results(3) Breakdown by company and application year
Figure 4 shows the number of declared patents by company for each application year.
The horizontal axis shows the earliest priority year and the vertical axis shows the namesof the declaring companies. The circle size is proportional to the number of patent families.
The companies can be roughly grouped into four categories:(a) Companies that have declared patents that were filed over many years, from the1990’s to the present: Qualcomm, Ericsson, InterDigital, Motorola, and Nokia(b) Companies that have declared patents that were filed mainly after 2005, the year
when LTE standardization work began: ZTE, Huawei, NTT DOCOMO, Sharp,
Alcatel-Lucent, Freescale, Marvell, InnovativeSonic, HTC, RIM, and CATT 1 1 .
(c) Companies that have declared patents whose application were filed prior to 2005
but not afterwards: Nortel, Siemens, Sony, IPR Licensing, Voiceage, HP,
iCODING and Koninkijke(d) Others

11

CATT declares only those patents that are filed after the time LTE standardization began.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

11

2.Survey results

Figure 4 – Analysis of application by company and application year

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

12

2.Survey results(4) Breakdown by application country
Figure 5 shows the number of declared patents for application countries. These numbers
are obtained by extracting corresponding patents data from PatBase, and then by counting
the patents with the same leading two characters in the application numbers, which signify
country codes 1 2 . The horizontal axis shows the application countries and the vertical axis
shows the number of patents. It was identified that applications have been filed in 57
countries. Those countries 1 3 that have less than ten patents filed are not shown in the
figure.
The result shows that US scored the largest number, followed by Patent Cooperation
Treaty (WO 1 4 ), China (CN), European Patent Office (EP), Korea (KR), and Japan (JP). This
indicates that the filing of applications have been done in countries where major companies
are located as well as where big mobile communication markets exist. In the present survey,
CATT has contributed to increasing the significance of China.

Country names and their abbreviations are shown below in descending order of the number ofapplications:
US: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WO: PATENT COOPERATION TREATY,
CN: CHINA, EP: EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE, KR: KOREA (REPUBLIC OF), JP: JAPAN,
AU: AUSTRALIA, IN: INDIA, CA: CANADA, TW: TAIWAN, DE: GERMANY, MX: MEXICO,
AT: AUSTRIA, RU: RUSSIAN FEDERATION, BR: BRAZIL, IL: ISRAEL, ES: SPAIN,
AR: ARGENTINA, HK: HONG KONG, NO: NORWAY, FI: FINLAND, GB: UNITED KINGDOM,ZA: SOUTH AFRICA, DK: DENMARK, SG: SINGAPORE, PT: PORTUGAL, NZ: NEW ZEALAND,
EA: EURASIAN PATENT OFFICE, SE: SWEDEN, ID: INDONESIA, UA: UKRAINE, FR: FRANCE,
MA: MOROCCO, IT: ITALY, AP: AFRICAN REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION,
PL: POLAND
1 3 SI: SLOVENIA, HU: HUNGARY, CO: COLOMBIA, CZ: CZECH REPUBLIC, MY: MALAYSIA,
BG: BULGARIA, EE: ESTONIA, EG: EGYPT, GR: GREECE, TR: TURKEY, CL: CHILE,
NL: NETHERLANDS, PE: PERU, PH: PHILIPPINES, RO: ROMANIA, SK: SLOVAKIA,
CH: SWITZERLAND, GE: GEORGIA, HR: CROATIA, IE: IRELAND, VN: VIET NAM
1 4 A “WO patent” is an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) of theWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Making a PCT application has the same effect as
filing the same application in all PCT member countries. WO patents are internationally unexamined
patents and only the publication before examination is made. After making the international applicationand then submitting the translated texts to the patent office in the respective country, registered patentpublication will be issued after successful completion of examinations in each country.
12

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

13

2.Survey results

Figure 5- Number of Declared Patents for Application Countries(5) Breakdown by company and application country
Figure 6 shows the breakdown by application country for each company. The countries tobe studied were taken the same as the previous survey.
The following points are observed.
(a) Among the top ranking companies, US and European companies, such as Qualcomm,
Ericsson, InterDigital, Motorola and Nokia in particular, are filing applications
worldwide.
(b) Japanese and Korean companies’ activities are not as strong as those seen in (a) but
they are filing applications to foreign countries in a balanced manner, including BRICs.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

14

2.Survey results

Figure 6 – Breakdown by application country and company

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

15

2.Survey results
2.3 Evaluation of essentiality to standards
Because declarations of patents are done voluntarily by each company, no indications are
made whether they are really essential and conforming to standards or they aresupplementary in the sense that they simply facilitate implementations. Furthermore, thecriteria to decide whether a particular patent is essential or not is up to each company, andthe decision is made based on the company’s own IPR strategy, to make the most of its IPR
assets. In addition to these, ETSI does not evaluate the relevance of the declared patents tothe standards. Due to these reasons, the numbers of patents shown in Section 2.2 do notreflect the truly “essential” patents held by each company, and do not meet our survey
objectives.
To overcome this difficulty, this survey applies a common set of criteria to see therelevance of declared patents to standard specifications. In this way, we can derive thenumber of truly “essential” patents based on objective evaluations rather than subjective
evaluation done by applicant companies.

(1) Evaluation method
Evaluations have been done in the following way.
(i) For each patent family, a representative patent (a patent that represents a declaredpatent family) was identified and checked against the standards.
(ii) In selecting a representative patent, Japanese patent was preferred, followed by US
patent, and EP or WO patent (in the order of preference).
(iii) If the representative patent was a registered one, claims in the registered patent areevaluated. If it was still pending 1 5 , the latest claim at the time of evaluation was used.
In the latter case, the latest claim after amendments was obtained from respective
patent information websites (in case of Japan:
http://www.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/Tokujitu/pfwj.ipdl?N0000=118).
(iv) If a patent has multiple claims, an independent claim that has the broadest scope waschosen.
(v) The standards to be checked against were, in principle, the ones indicated in the“Essential to standards YES to ETSI FRAND license” column of the list. However, otherstandards are also referred to for additional information.
(vi) Regarding the versions of the standards for reference, in principle, Release 9 (end of
March, 2010 version) was used regardless of the version indicated in the “Essential tostandards YES to ETSI FRAND license” column of the list. Additionally, Release 10 (endof March, 2011 version) was also used as a supplement.

Pending means that the application is being processed in the patent office and neither decision nor
trial decision has been reached. For instance, until a trial decision of rejection is made, the applicationis pending at the patent office but, if revocation of the trial decision is launched and the patent is inlitigation, the application is not pending at the patent office (pending litigation). Furthermore, if thetrial decision of rejection is cancelled by the court decision, the application will again be pending at thepatent office.

15

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

16

2.Survey results(vii) Essentialities were determined by classifying a patent into one of three categories, A,
B or C, according to its relevance to standards. The definitions of A, B and C are as
follows:
A: The invention contained in the patent matches the standards.
B: The invention contained partially matches the standards.
C: The invention contained does not match the standards.
The evaluation works were conducted by technical people. Patents from a company were
distributed to separate individuals for evaluation in order to ensure fair evaluations.

(2) Selection of patents for evaluation
Because of limited evaluation time available, it was not possible to evaluate all of the
5,013 patents. So patents for evaluation were selected from the list according to thefollowing criteria:(a) As many companies as possible are to be selected, unless their declarations weremade only lately.
(b) As for companies that have made numerous declarations, around 50 patents each are
to be selected.
(c) Those patents whose specifications are written in Japanese or English are to be
selected. If this is not possible, specifications in other languages (e.g. Chinese) areused and evaluations are done based on their English abstract.

Figure 7 – Numbers and percentages of patents evaluatedEvaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

17

2.Survey results
In Figure 7 the bar graph shows the numbers of patents selected for evaluation in the
study, and the line graph shows the ratio of the number of selected patents to the number ofdeclared patents for each company. The horizontal axis shows company names while thevertical axis on the left shows the number of patents and the one on the right shows theratio in percentage. In the figure, underlined numbers show the percentages and those
without underline show the number of patents that have been evaluated.
For companies listed to the left of LG, the criterion (b) has applies and more than 50
patents have been selected.
It should be noted that the percentage evaluated is somewhat low with ZTE, because
the proportion of ZTE’s patents written in Chinese is rather high (the number of evaluatedpatents should be increased for the future by studying the patents applied to US or EP).
Qualcomm shows a lower ratio because it has declared a very large number of patents.
CATT has been omitted from the current evaluation because the company made its
declarations only lately.
Total of 1,601 patents have been evaluated, which amounted to 31.8% of the declaredpatents (5,013).

(3) Essentiality evaluation results
Figure 8 shows the essentiality evaluation results for all 1,601 patents. The percentageof those scored “A”, which is considered to be truly “essential” for the standards, was 57.7%.
Although all patents studied have been declared to be essential, a certain portion ofthem are evaluated to be “B” or “C”. The main reason for this is considered to lie in the
difference in each company’s criteria for judging essentiality and its declaration policy. It is
likely that those irrelevant patents were declared essential based on the company’s IPR
strategy even though those patents may have been internally judged to be somewhat shortof being essential.
It should be noted that 100% accuracy of the results cannot be guaranteed, due to theintrinsic limitation introduced by the evaluation methods adopted in this survey andlimited time available.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

18

2.Survey results

Figure 8 – Essentiality evaluation results
A: The invention contained in the patent matches the standards.
B: The invention contained partially matches the standards.
C: The invention contained does not match the standards.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

19

2.Survey results(4) Evaluation results for each company
Figure 9 shows the evaluation results for the 1,601 patents for each company. Most
companies have more “A”s than “B”s or “C”s. In particular, NTT DOCOMO, ZTE, LG, Nokia
Siemens, NEC, Nortel, InnovativeSonic, HTC, and RIM have relatively high “A” ratios.

Figure 9 - Essentiality evaluation results by company

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

20

2.Survey results(5) Essentiality ratios based on all the evaluated patents
Figure 10 shows the essentiality ratios (defined as the percentage of patents evaluatedas “A” to all the patents evaluated) for each company. The horizontal axis shows theessentiality ratio (%) and the vertical axis shows the company names. Due to space
limitation, companies with less than 10 declared patents were omitted.
Companies such as ZTE, NTT DOCOMO, Nokia Siemens, NEC, LG, TI, InnovativeSonic,
HTC, and RIM have higher ratios than average (57.7%). One of the reasons for this isconsidered to be that these companies made declarations for relatively new patents, filed
after LTE standardization began.

Average (57.7%)
Figure 10 - Evaluation results for each company (essentiality ratio)(6) Registration ratios of evaluated patents
In considering the essentiality of the patents, it is necessary to take into account
whether the patents under study have already been registered or not. This is to take into
consideration the effect of future decline of their relevance during the course of patent

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

21

2.Survey results
examinations. Figure 11 shows the ratio of registered patents to the total number of patents
under evaluation for each company. Results are shown only for those companies that haveno less than 10 patents for evaluation.
In Figure 11, patents were counted by referring to their legal statuses in the application
country as of the survey period. Therefore, it must be noted that the result does not reflect
the legal status as of present nor does it reflect the legal status in those countries pertinent
to ETSI declarations. For example, as described in Section 2.3 (1)(ii), in most of the cases,
legal status is derived from Japanese patent, if a patent family includes a Japanese one, orfrom US patent, if the family does not include a Japanese one. So, even for US-based
Qualcomm, about 30% of the evaluations were based on the application filed in Japan. In
the case where the evaluated were PCT patents, they were treated as non-registered.
With companies whose registration ratio is high, essentiality has been evaluated mainly
based on established patents and it is reasonable to assume that the essentiality ratios
would not change largely; whereas with those whose registration ratio is low, their ratios
may degrade as their patents are examined and their relevance may become lower.

Figure 11 –Registration ratios of patents evaluated(7) Essentiality ratios based on registered patents
Figure 12 shows, for each company, the number of registered patents evaluated andessentiality ratio (denoted registration-based essentiality ratio hereafter). Registrationbased essentiality ratio pertains to the ratio of A-scored patents against the company’s all
evaluated registered patents. Line graph with scale on the right side shows registrationbased essentiality ratios and bar graph with scale on the left side show the number of

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

22

2.Survey results
registered patents evaluated.
With companies (Nokia, Ericsson, and Motorola) that have large number of registeredpatents, registration-based essentiality ratios show lower value than those observed in
Figure 10 by 7 to 10 percent. This shows that amendments to patent claims during their
examinations have resulted in non-negligible effects on their relevance to standards.
NTT DOCOMO, TI, and InnovativeSonic are remarkable in the sense that they showhigh registration-based essentiality ratios while possessing a reasonable number of patents.
With Samsung, Huawei, ZTE, and LG, in contrast, the numbers of evaluated registeredpatents are small, and the essentiality ratios seen in Figure 10 might well decrease,affected by the future patent examinations.

Figure 12 The numbers of registered patents evaluated and registration-based
essentiality ratios

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

23

3.Estimation of the gross numbers of ”essential” patents

３･Estimation of the gross numbers of ”essential” patents
The gross number of “essential” patents held by each company (on a patent family basis)has been estimated by multiplying the number of declared patents (see Table 1 or Figure 1)
by the essentiality ratio for each company.
The numbers have been estimated for two cases: in one case, essentiality ratios derived
for all evaluated patents are applied, and in the other, those derived for registered patents
are applied.

(1) Estimation based on all the evaluated patents
The gross number of “essential” patents has been estimated based on the essentiality
ratio derived from all the evaluated patents, as shown in section 2.3 (5). The estimation
was done, for each company, by multiplying the total number of declared patents by the
essentiality ratio. The result is shown in Figure 13.
For those companies (e.g., CATT, ETRI, and Siemens) with which essentiality ratio were
not available, due to the fact that evaluation was not conducted in this survey or thenumber of evaluated patents was small, the average value of 57.7% have been applied.
ZTE is estimated to be number one with 311 “essential” patents followed, by Qualcomm(297), Samsung (296), Nokia (273), Huawei (257), NTT DOCOMO (206), LG (196),
InterDigital (193), Ericsson (180), and CATT (152).
Regarding ZTE, Huawei, LG, and Samsung, their low registration ratios (shown in
Figure 11) suggest that many of their patents are still in examination phase. Thus, as was
mentioned earlier, there may be a possibility that the numbers become smaller due to therestrictive amendments made to patent claims as the result of their patent examinations.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

243.Estimation of the gross numbers of ”essential” patents

Figure 13 – Estimated number of “ essential” patents(based on all evaluated patents)(2) Estimation based on registered patents
The gross number of “essential” patents has been estimated based on the essentiality
ratio derived from all the evaluated patents, as shown in section 2.3 (7). The estimation
was done, for each company, by multiplying the total number of declared patents by the
essentiality ratio. The result is shown in Figure 14.
For those companies the number of registered patents for evaluation was less than six as
seen in Figure 12, their essentiality ratios were assumed to be the average value of 54.2%.
The result shows that Qualcomm is estimated to be number one with 260 “essential”
patents, followed by Nokia (230), Huawei (256), NTT DOCOMO and Samsung(204 each),
ZTE(195), Ericsson (156), CATT(144), LG(139) and InterDigital(127). Because theestimations are based on registered patents, essentiality ratio decreases and estimations
show smaller values than those seen in the previous case (Figure 13).

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

25

3.Estimation of the gross numbers of ”essential” patents

Figure 14 – Estimated number of “ essential” patents(based on registered patents)(3) Main features of the major companies
Based on the results shown so far, the main features of the major companies are
summarized as follows.
i)
Qualcomm
Qualcomm has the second largest number of declared patents. It continuously madedeclarations from as early as 2007 up to 2011. The company’s essentiality ratios are slightly
lower than average but scores around 50%, resulting in one of the companies with highest
number of essential patents. This makes us believe that Qualcomm has been allocating
significant resources for analyzing its own patents and actively declaring patents that haveexceeded reasonable criteria. It is foreseen that their declarations will further increase in
the future. Keeping pace with the company’s globalization efforts, Qualcomm is expected tohold many “essential” patents in many countries.
ii) Nokia
Nokia has continued its patent declarations from 2006 till 2011. Application dates rages

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

26

3.Estimation of the gross numbers of ”essential” patentsfrom around 1990 to the present time. This shows that the company analyzes its patentportfolio and declares those patents that meet its standards. Its patent registration ratio isrelatively high and essentiality ratio is at the average level. Globalizing its activities, thecompany is expected to hold a number of “essential” patents in many countries.
iii) Huawei
Huawei started to make declarations after 2008 for patents filed after 2005. The
company declared many patents in 2011 and holds a large number of declared patents. The
essentiality ratio is lower than average, but not far below 50%, resulting in the significant
number of “essential” patents. The patent registration ratio is identified to be low and thefuture development of the legal status needs to be watched.
iv) NTT DOCOMONTT DOCOMO made declarations in 2009 and 2010 for its patent applications filed after
2005. The company continued the activity into 2011. The ratio of registered patents is highdespite their being newer applications, and their essentiality ratio is very high. This meansthat NTT DOCOMO possesses a relatively high number of registered “essential” patents sothat, when compared with other companies, NTT DOCOMO may deserve a higher positionin the essentiality ranking.
v) Samsung
Samsung started to make declarations after 2008 for patents filed after 2005. The
company declared many patents in 2011 and became the 1st place in terms of declaredpatents. It continued its declarations into 2012. Because the patents are new, theirregistration ratio is still low and their essentiality ratio is at the average level. In spite ofthis fact, because the number of declared patents is large, the number of their “essential”
patents is large. Their policy of actively making declarations is evident but there is achance that the sheer number of “essential” patents may not increase as much as expected,
depending on the results of future patent examinations. Therefore, a close watch on theexamination status of Samsung’s patents will be important.
vi) ZTEZTE made declarations in a lump in 2010 covering its patents filed after 2006 and havebeen continuing the activity in 2011 and 2012. Its activity is anticipated to continue on. The
number of declarations is comparatively large, and essentiality ratio is high, resulting in
the 1st place in the number of “essential” patents. ZTE’s characteristic points are that thedeclaration was made mainly of those patents that had been applied with LTE in mind, andthat most of the declared patents are not yet registered. Therefore, depending on theexamination results, a certain number of the patents may become non-essential whichsuggests that the estimated number of “essential” patents held by ZTE might be an
overestimate, compared to those of other companies.
vii) Ericsson
Ericsson declared its patents mainly around 2009 and 2010. The declarations in 2011were relatively small, resulting in the low ranking in terms of the number of “essential”

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

27

3.Estimation of the gross numbers of ”essential” patents
patents. The company’s registration ratio and essentiality ratio are both at average level.
Because their declared patents were filed between around 1990 and the present time, it islikely that Ericsson has conducted a comprehensive analysis of their own patents at certain
stages and, during these two years, made declarations for the patents that met theircriteria.
viii) CATT
CATT made all of its declarations in 2011. This is the first time for the company to be in
our survey. It declared the patents that had been applied in the time frame from 2006 to2010 at one time. The patents were originally filed by Da Tang Mobile or SHANGHAIULTIMATE POWER. It is desirable to evaluate a reasonable number of patents, filed withJapan, U.S., and Europe, to assess its essentiality ratio.
ix) LGLG made declarations in a lump in 2009 and 2010 for its patents filed between 1998 and2010. This may be due to that fact that the company analyzes its patent portfolio
periodically and declares them at a time. The high essentiality ratio suggests that they
have made declarations based on relatively strict internal evaluations on their patents.
Note should be made to its low registration ratio so that future examinations would affectthe outcome.
x) InterDigital
InterDigital continuously made declarations from as early as 2007 up to 2011, resulting
in a substantial number of patent declarations. However, both registration ratio andessentiality ratio are lower than other major companies and there are cases that declaredpatents were rejected in examinations. So, it may be that the number of “essential” patentsof InterDigital may not increase so much like the cases of other major companies. Since thenumber of declarations made by the company has been increasing each other year, theincrease may be observed in 2012, following the small declarations in 2011. In this regard,
future development should be watched for.
xi) Motorola
Motorola made declarations in a lump in 2010 covering its patents filed between 1990
and 2007 and did not make them in 2011. It is estimated that Motorola has spentconsiderable time to make a comprehensive analysis of its patents and selected thosepatents to be declared. Among the patents that were evaluated, there were many patents
that were filed before 2005, which may have been one of the reasons for Motorola’s low
essentiality ratio. In order to ensure the consistent evaluations, it may be better toevaluate some additional patents that are applied more lately.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

28

4.Summary

４・Summary
The main results of this survey are as follows:i)

The original list of essential patents notified to ETSI (original list) was obtained
from the ETSI website. By extracting only relevant patents from the list andgrouping them into patent families, a total of 5,013 patents were identified to be
subject to this study. This is the effective number of declared patents. The number ofcompanies that made declarations was 43.

ii)

Samsung has the largest number of declared patents (612, 12.2%) and is followed by
Qualcomm (544, 10.9％ ), Huawei (527, 10.5%), Nokia (464, 9.3%), InterDigital (382,
7.6％ ), ZTE (352, 7.2％ ), Ericsson (352,7.0%), and CATT (265, 5.3%). In the present
survey, CATT newly came in the ranking as one of major companies. Declarations are
not limited to major companies, but are evenly distributed among many companies.
The nationalities of the companies are also evenly distributed among USA, Europe
and Asia.

iii)

Many of the declared patents had been filed after 2005, when LTE standardization
work began. In particular, the applications filed between 2006 and 2009 are dominant,and the number of declarations made on the applications filed between 1999 and 2004
are also significant. The majority of patents subject to the current survey are those
filed in 2009 and 2010.

iv)

Companies can be classified into four types, namely, a) those who have declaredpatents filed during a long period of time from the early days (around 1990) to now,b) those who have declared patents filed mainly after 2005 (the year when LTE
standardization started), c) those who have declared patents filed earlier times, but
not after 2005, and d) those who do not fall into any of the above categories.

v)

The countries, where the applications were filed with, were surveyed. Qualcomm,
Ericsson, InterDigital, Motorola and Nokia have been filing their applications withvarious countries in the world. Japanese and Korean companies have also been filingthere applications evenly among BRICs and other countries.

vi)

Essentiality has been determined for each patent selected, for evaluation, from 5,013
patents. It has been estimated that 58% of them are truly “essential”, conforming to
ETSI standards. With ZTE, NTT DOCOMO NEC, InnovativeSonic, HTC, and RIM,
more than 80% of their declared patents are identified to be “essential.”

vii)

Legal statuses of evaluated patents in respective application countries have been

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

29

4.Summary
studied. The results show that Motorola scores the highest registration ratio of over
70%. Nokia, NTT DOCOMO, and Sharp each scores over 50%, Huawei and Samsung
each scores under 10%, and ZTE has no patents legally examined yet. This meansthat evaluations on Motorola have been done mostly based on claims of registeredones, whereas evaluations on ZTE have been done based on unexamined ones.
viii)

The numbers of “essential” patents have been derived by multiplying the numbers ofdeclared patents by the essentiality ratios. When the ratios are determined based on
all the evaluated patents, ZTE is estimated to have the largest number of “essential”
patents (311) followed by Qualcomm (297), Samsung (296), Nokia (273), Huawei (257),
NTT DOCOMO (206), LG (196), InterDigital (193), Ericsson (180), and CATT (152).
Regarding companies such as ZTE and Huawei who have many unregistered patents,
those numbers may be reduced because of the possible decline of the essentiality
ratio during the course of legal examinations.

ix)

When the essentiality ratios are determined based on registered patents, Qualcomm
owns the largest number of “essential” patents (260), followed by Nokia(230),
Huawei(226), NTT DOCOMO and Samsung(204 each), ZTE(195), Ericsson(156),
CATT(144), LG(139), and InterDigital(127). It should be noted that evaluation
samples are small with non-negligible number of companies, and accumulation ofsamples are important for the future.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

30

References
References

1)

List of essential, or potentially essential IPRs notified to ETSI
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_sr/000300_000399/000314/

2) 3GPP standards
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/41101.htm
Release8: http://www.3gpp.org/Release-8
Release9: http://www.3gpp.org/Release-9
Release10: http://www.3gpp.org/Release-10
Release11: http://www.3gpp.org/Release-11
3)

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI, Version 1.0
http://www.cybersoken.com/xxxx

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

31

Appendix
Appendix 1
Excerpt of ETSI site（ http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_sr/000300_000399/000314/）

ETSI IPR ONLINE DATABASE -- DISCLAIMER
IPR in ETSI deliverables
The ETSI IPR DATABASE contains IPRs, particularly patents and patent applications, which have been notified to ETSI as being essential, or potentiallyessential, to ETSI standards. Unless otherwise specified, all IPRs contained herein have been notified to ETSI, with an undertaking from the owner togrant licenses according to the terms and conditions of Article 6.1 of the ETSI IPR POLICY (Annex 6 of the Rules of Procedure).
The ETSI IPR DATABASE provides data that is based on the information received. ETSI has not checked the validity of the information, nor the relevanceof the identified patents/patent applications to the ETSI Standards and cannot confirm, or deny, that the patents/patent applications are, in fact,essential, or potentially essential. No investigation, or IPR searches, have been carried out by ETSI and therefore no guarantee can be given
concerning the existence of other IPRs which are, or may become, essential.
Potential Licensees should use the information in this database at their discretion and should contact the patent holder, for example to establish theasserted status for a disclosed patent family, prior to making a patent licensing decision.

Patent information
Application number

Publication number
0 318 033
Re. 36,309

CA19912054849
CA19922061832
DE19916031339T
DE19916032986T
DE19916032987T
DE19916033296T
DE19926029974T
DE19926032879T
DE19926032887T
EP19910102440
EP19910118741
EP19920103179
EP19960115034
EP19960115033
EP19980124813
EP19980124814
JP19910261925
JP19900042955
JP19900042956
US19910658473
US19910787596
US19920841726

5 487 128
CA2054849 C
CA2061832 C
DE69131339 T2
DE69132986 T2
DE69132987 T2
DE69133296 T2
DE69229974 T2
DE69232879 T2
DE69232887 T2
EP0443548 B1
EP0483882 B1
EP0504627 B1
EP0753841 B1
EP0755047 B1
EP0910063 B1
EP0910064 B1
JP3151874 B2
JP3194930 B2JP3256215 B2US5208862 A
US5271089 A
US5487128 A

CA19830444239
JP19820231603
JP19820231605
JP19820231606
US19830565804
EP07786577
EP20070786577
WO2007EP06931

CA1197619 A1
JP1740692 C
JP1740693 C
JP1740694 C
US4716592 A
EP2174480
EP2174480 A1
WO2009018835 A1

Title
Patent office Declaring companies
Digital cellular telecommunicaNEC Corporation
Digital cellular telecommunicaNEC Corporation
GB (UNITED KINGNEC Corporation
DE (GERMANY) NEC Corporation
SE (SWEDEN)
NEC Corporation
US (UNITED STATNEC Corporation
Speech PaUS (UNITED STATNEC Corporation
CA (CANADA)
NEC Corporation
SPEECH PA
CA (CANADA)
NEC Corporation
SPEECH PA
Verfahren zDE (GERMANY) NEC Corporation
Verfahren zDE (GERMANY) NEC Corporation
Verfahren zDE (GERMANY) NEC Corporation
SprachcodiDE (GERMANY) NEC Corporation
Verfahren DE (GERMANY) NEC Corporation
SprachparaDE (GERMANY) NEC Corporation
Sprachkodi DE (GERMANY) NEC Corporation
Speech coEP (EPO /EuropeaNEC Corporation
Speech parEP (EPO /EuropeaNEC Corporation
Speech parEP (EPO /EuropeaNEC Corporation
Speech parEP (EPO /EuropeaNEC Corporation
Speech parEP (EPO /EuropeaNEC Corporation
Speech parEP (EPO /EuropeaNEC Corporation
Speech parEP (EPO /EuropeaNEC Corporation
NEC Corporation
SYSTEM AJP (JAPAN)
NEC Corporation
VOICE ENCJP (JAPAN)
NEC Corporation
VOICE ENCJP (JAPAN)
SPEECH CUS (UNITED STATNEC Corporation
Speech parUS (UNITED STATNEC Corporation
Speech parUS (UNITED STATNEC Corporation
GB (UNITED KINGNEC Corporation
DE (GERMANY) NEC Corporation
FR (FRANCE)NEC Corporation
GB (UNITED KINGNEC Corporation
DE (GERMANY) NEC Corporation
FR (FRANCE)NEC Corporation
NEC Corporation
VOICE ENCCA (CANADA)
NEC Corporation
VOICE COJP (JAPAN)
NEC Corporation
VOICE COJP (JAPAN)
NEC Corporation
VOICE COJP (JAPAN)
Method andUS (UNITED STATNEC Corporation
EU (EUROPEAN UNEC Corporation
METHOD FEP (EPO /EuropeaNEC Corporation
METHOD FWO (PCT /PatentNEC Corporation

IPR declaration information
Projects
Standards
Declaration references Declaration dates Essential to projects Non-essential to projects Essential to standards YES to ET Essential to standards NO Non-essential to standards
ISLD-199911-001
04/11/1999
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
ETS 300 579|TS 05.10 (v4.9.0)
ISLD-199911-001
04/11/1999
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
ETS 300 938|TS 04.06 (v5.2.1)
ISLD-199911-001
04/11/1999
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
ETS 300 579|TS 05.10 (v4.9.0)
ISLD-199911-001
04/11/1999
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
ETS 300 579|TS 05.10 (v4.9.0)
ISLD-199911-001
04/11/1999
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
ETS 300 579|TS 05.10 (v4.9.0)
ISLD-199911-001
04/11/1999
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
ETS 300 938|TS 04.06 (v5.2.1)
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044
14/01/1997
GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
TS 06.20
ISLD-190001-044|ISLD-19014/01/1997|28/05/193GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project)|GSM (GlobalTS 126 090|TS 126 190|TS 06.60|TS 26.090|TS 26.190
ISLD-190001-044|ISLD-19014/01/1997|28/05/193GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project)|GSM (GlobalTS 126 090|TS 126 190|TS 06.60|TS 26.090|TS 26.190
ISLD-190001-044|ISLD-19014/01/1997|28/05/193GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project)|GSM (GlobalTS 126 090|TS 126 190|TS 06.60|TS 26.090|TS 26.190
ISLD-190001-044|ISLD-19014/01/1997|28/05/193GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project)|GSM (GlobalTS 126 090|TS 126 190|TS 06.60|TS 26.090|TS 26.190
ISLD-190001-044|ISLD-19014/01/1997|28/05/193GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project)|GSM (GlobalTS 126 090|TS 126 190|TS 06.60|TS 26.090|TS 26.190
ISLD-201007-008
25/06/2010
e-transport (Intelligent transport systems)
TS 102 636-6-1 (v0.0.7)
ISLD-201007-008
25/06/2010
e-transport (Intelligent transport systems)
TS 102 636-6-1 (v0.0.7)
ISLD-201007-008
25/06/2010
e-transport (Intelligent transport systems)
TS 102 636-6-1 (v0.0.7)

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI
Copyright(c)2012 Cyber Creative Institute All rights reserved.

32