Estimating thefuture 5G patent
landscape

October 2018

ericsson.com/
patents-and-licensing

2Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscapeIntroduction

Publications in popular news outlets
indicate growing interest in who owns themost significant 5G patent portfolios in theindustry. Unfortunately, as of late 2018, thevast majority of 5G patents have not yet
been issued from patent offices. They arestill pending full examination of the merits,
and many are not yet public. Thus, it is
impossible to canvass the actual 5G patent
landscape at this time. For portfolio

evaluation purposes, comprehensive
patent-by-patent analyses can only bedone when the main portion of the potential
5G patents have been granted, which we
expect will be several years from now.
An alternative approach to get an ideaof the importance of different companies’
future 5G patent portfolios is to analyze
how much industry participants havecontributed to the standard so far.

The 5G standards are specified in 3GPP,and this data is public and readily
available. The approach is therefore
objective and repeatable by anyone.
It builds on the plausible assumption thatthose companies with the most significant
impact on the 5G standard will hold thestrongest 5G patent portfolios going
forward. The results show that Ericssonis the leading contributor to 3GPP.

3

Estimating 5G patentportfolio strength

The future 5G patent landscape can be
estimated by analyzing companies’ impact
on the standardized 5G technology.

There is a growing interest in learning
about the future patent landscapefor 5G. The first revision of the standard
specifications defining the technology
for standalone 5G was approved inJune 2018, and the whole industry is
now on a final sprint to commercialize 5G.
Thus, over the past six months or so,
media articles have started speculating
about the number of patents different
companies hold for 5G.
Regulators and policy-makers are also
calling for greater transparency of the 5G
patent and licensing landscape.1 Some haveexpressed concerns that it is difficult forsmall and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
that require licenses to essential 5G patents
to know the ownership and pricing of themost significant 5G patent portfolios.
However, it is not yet possible to reliably
estimate the future 5G patent landscapebased on patent analysis, as it takes years
for a patent office to examine an applicationand issue a granted patent.2 Furthermore,industry participants need to know the actual
scope of protection of an issued patent todetermine whether that patent is essential
to 5G. At this point in time, a substantial
portion of patent applications recently filed
during 5G development are not yet granted,
and many applications related to 5G are notyet even publicly available for analysis.

 uropean Commission, COM (2017) 712 final,
E“Setting out the EU approach to Standard
Essential Patents” (November 2017).
2
After submitting a patent application, it typicallytakes about one to three years to get a grant,
sometimes significantly longer. It is also common forcompanies to submit provisional applications early,
up to a year prior to submitting the corresponding
patent application. This may add another year
to the granting process. It is also common to fileadditional divisional/continuing applications several
years after the original filing. This means it cantake several years before the final protection scope
is known, and the time may vary significantly.
1

Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscape4

An additional complexity is that the analysisof potentially essential patents is far fromtrivial. It requires detailed knowledge ofpatents and the regulatory environment inwhich they are granted, in addition to a deep
understanding of intricate technical details
and requirements set by 5G specifications.
Portfolio valuation through essentiality
analyses also requires knowledge of which
portions of the standard are implemented
by products in the market. A patent thatis essential to a portion of a standard thathas not been implemented at all is clearly
not as relevant, even if it reads on theletters written in the standard document.
For 5G, there is still not much information
available regarding which standardized
features will find traction in the market
and be implemented in the future.
An invention is regularly filed in many
countries, with multiple claims in eachapplication, whereby the protection
scope may differ between the different
countries where the patents, derived fromthe invention, are filed. These patents,
based on the same invention and filed indifferent countries, form a patent family.3
In our experience, it takes tens of hours toreliably evaluate the potential essentialityof a single patent family, even for highly
specialized experts in the corresponding
technology. Such work is commonly
conducted, e.g. during bilateral licensing
discussions, when parties analyze selected
portions (samples) of their respective
portfolios. However, conducting a similar
analysis of the full patent landscape forall potentially essential patent families isan overwhelming task that simply cannot
be reliably conducted today, as manyof the future 5G patents to be analyzed
are not yet available for analysis.
An often-used starting point foressentiality analysis is the ETSI database,where contributors to 3GPP submit theirdeclarations of what may be or may
become essential for a standard developedby 3GPP. Some companies havealready made such “5G declarations”.4
However, only after all contributors to
3GPP submit their 5G declarations and theEricsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscape

5G patents in the declared patent families
are granted can industry participants
analyze those patents for essentiality.
When analyzing the ETSI declarations
made to 5G projects through early June 2018
and correlating these declarations to patent
databases, it turns out that only a subsetof the declarations can yet be associatedwith publicly available patent families;
see Figure 1. Before this ETSI data on 5G
can be used for any meaningful analysis,
at a minimum, the declared families must
become public, and patents from thosedeclared families must issue. Until then,the ETSI database simply cannot act asa reliable starting point for 5G analysis.
Analyzing 3GPP impact
Another approach for estimating future
5G patent portfolio strength is to analyze
the impact that companies have madeon the development of the 5G standard.
This approach builds on the plausible
assumption that those companies
with the most significant impact on
the 5G standard will have the strongest
5G patent portfolios going forward.

Development of the 5G standard is being
done in 3GPP, a partnership of standards
development organizations from aroundthe world that have defined the 3G, 4G
and now 5G standards. Its members
include numerous telecommunications
companies, including Ericsson, Nokia,
Qualcomm, Samsung and Huawei. 3GPP iscontribution-driven, which means thatmember companies submit technicalproposals for inclusion in the standard.
Alternative solutions are often proposedby multiple 3GPP members, followed
by enhancements and compromises.
The resulting solutions that end up in
the standard have thus been vetted
and scrutinized by experts from many
companies that often are competitors in
the marketplace. 3GPP is therefore both acollaborative and highly competitive forum.
Developing technically meaningful
and convincing contributions requires
significant research efforts and investments,
and the competitive nature of 3GPP
means that, to be taken seriously, carefulanalysis of the benefits and drawbacksof proposals needs to be undertaken.

Figure 1: Publicly available patent families associated with 5G declarations by June 20185
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Ericsson

Huawei

Sharp

Intel

LG

InterDigital

PolaranNote: Number of publicly available patent families associated with 5G declarations by early
June 2018. At the time of analysis, Ericsson had made close to 1,200 5G declarations, but fewer
than 700 were available publicly. Since then, Ericsson has provided further 5G declarations to
ETSI. With regard to the industry as a whole, we found 6,295 5G declarations from 13 companies
in total, but only 2,041 publicly available patent families associated with the declarations.

The applications and patents originating from the same invention are said to belong to the same patent family. Some variations to the definition of a patent family exist.
We use this term to denote the disclosure of one application or patent to ETSI according to the ETSI policy.
5
Data in Figure 1 was compiled by Pattern, which is Bird & Bird LLP’s patent intelligence offering. www.twobirds.com/en/client-solutions/consulting/pattern
3
4

5

Meaningful participation in the 3GPP
standards development requires
long-term investments and thousandsof R&D man-hours. Companies
gain trust and credibility in 3GPP
through long-term participation andby consistently working towards
developing the best specifications.
Analyzing the impact of companies
on the development of 3GPP standards
has many attractive features as a proxyfor future patent portfolio strength:—3
 GPP documents are public andaccessible online for anyone to analyze.
Also, 3GPP uploads documents on
its website on a running basis, whichmeans that trends and changes in
impact can be observed in 3GPP muchbefore any corresponding analyses canbe done on patents in patent databases.
—3
 GPP results are objective andtransparent. Anyone can re-do theanalysis and arrive at comparable
results. This is different from any
patent essentiality analysis, which
requires significant input fromtechnical and legal experts and cannot
be easily checked or reproduced.
—F ull view of all contributors. A 3GPP
analysis gives a comprehensive
picture of all contributors to
the 3GPP technologies.

6

Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscape

While there are many benefits with a
3GPP impact analysis, 3GPP landscaping
has its potential uncertainties. It assumes
that sophisticated companies have similar
strategies of filing patents before they
propose and drive their technology into
3GPP specifications. We believe that
this is highly likely among sophisticatedcompanies, as companies are generally
incentivized to secure patents on theirinventive technological advancements.
Moreover, we have observed in pastcross-licensing negotiations thatcompanies do, in fact, patent theirinventive contributions to 3GPP.
3GPP landscaping also assumes
that only those contributing to 3GPP
will have a significant essential
patent portfolio.6 We believe that thisis also a valid assumption. It seems
implausible that anyone not taking
a strong responsibility for driving thedevelopment and evolution of the 3GPP
standardized technology could develop asignificant portfolio of essential patents.
Our experience as a licensee has
validated this assumption as well.
A third assumption is that the natureof contributions made to 3GPP is similar
across companies. While it’s theoreticallypossible for some companies to makesmall contributions and others to makelarge contributions, looking over along period of time and thousandsof contributions, it’s unlikely that thelower-quality contributors could continue
such a pattern. Those companies would
likely begin to suffer reputational harmby consistently proposing immaterial
contributions on a massive scale over an GPP landscaping is particularly informative for large contributors with significant portfolios.
3
For minor contributors and holders of only a few patents, the landscaping can be less accurate.

The companies contributing mostto standards development are
expected to have the most significant
standard essential patent portfolios.

extended period of time. If they would thentout contributions as a proxy for patentportfolio strength, their later-issuing patentportfolios would be disproportionately
weak compared to other patent holders,further damaging their reputation.
So, while this third assumption could
be affected by short-term opportunism,
it’s likely to hold across longer timescales.
Also, reputation could be cross-checked byobserving other 3GPP behavior, such aswhether large contributors are (or are not)being elected or appointed to leadership
positions. In this regard, Ericsson currently
holds the most chairmanships andvice chairman positions in 3GPP.
Ericsson is both a licensor of essential
patents and a licensee, with billionsof dollars of global sales of cellularinfrastructure equipment. Our experiencein numerous licensing discussions is that
impact on the development of 3GPP
standards correlates well with relative
patent portfolio strength. Thus, 3GPP
impact is a good leading indicator ofpatent portfolio strength and, at
this point in time, the best andmost reliable method available for
estimating future patent portfolio
strength. The companies contributing
most to standards development are
expected to have the most significant
standard essential patent portfolios.

6

Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscapeThe 3GPP landscape

3GPP standardizes new technologies based on
input from its members. Member contributions
have grown tremendously over time.

Since its original scope in the late 1990s
to produce technical specifications for 3G,
3GPP has evolved considerably. Today,
3GPP is responsible for the maintenanceand evolution of 2G, 3G and 4G.7 With5G, the 3GPP family of technologies
now includes a fourth member.
The current 3GPP cellular technologies
have been extraordinary successes,
and the expectations for 5G are veryhigh. While the original intent of 2G wasprimarily to serve voice communication,
the latter technologies now serve a wholearray of use cases at a performancelevel that even the most optimistic
predictions more than 20 years
back could not foresee.
We now take it almost for granted
that we have internet, music streaming,social connections, news, boarding
passes, payment, banking, games and soon, available in our pocket – a futuristic
scenario that few would have believed
possible just a few years ago. The cellular
technologies have enabled whole
new industries, such as the app storesand companies developing the apps,
and are transforming existing industries,

such as automotive, to provide
enhanced safety, efficiency,
entertainment and other services.
The success of the 3GPP family oftechnologies is also reflected in theincreased investments companies
make in further developing improved
technical solutions for standardization.
Since its start in 1999, 3GPP has growntremendously, and the total number oftechnical input papers has increased
more than six-fold from slightly less than
6,000 in 1999 to more than 40,000 input
papers in 2017; see Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Number of technical 3GPP input papers per year
45,00040,00035,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,000
5,000
0
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Note: Number of technical input papers submitted to 3GPP per year. Administrative documents and resubmitted duplicate input documents are not included.

Each technology has undergone continuous improvements in 3GPP over the years, through new releases.
Today, the activity to evolve 2G and 3G is limited, while both 4G and 5G will be subject to further improvements.

7

2016

2017

7

Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscapeThe sheer number illustrates the enormous
efforts and activities that are undertaken
by 3GPP members, which is also evident
from the size of recent expert meetings.
For example, RAN Working Group 1(“RAN1”, see below), which is responsible
for the standardization of the physical
air-interface layer, meets at least 8 times ayear at various locations around the globe
with up to 500 delegates attending eachmeeting. RAN1 is just 1 out of 16 3GPP
Working Groups that gather on a regularschedule, albeit a very important one.
The current 3GPP Working Group
organization is shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Technical Specification Groups structure in 3GPP
Project Co-ordination GroupTSG RANRadio Access Network

TSG SA
Service & Systems Aspects

TSG CT
Core Network & Terminals

RAN WG1
Radio Layer 1 spec

SA WG1Services

CT WG1
MM/CC/SM(u)RAN WG2Radio Layer 2 spec
Radio Layer 3 RR spec

SA WG2
Architecture

CT WG3
Interworking with external networks

RAN WG3
lub spec, lur spec, lu spec
UTRAN O&M requirements

SA WG3
Security

CT WG4
MAP/GTP/BCH/SS

RAN WG4Radio Performance
Protocol aspects

SA WG4Codec

CT WG6
Smart Card Application Aspects

RAN WG5
Mobile Terminal
Conformance Testing

SA WG5
Telecom Management

RAN WG6
Legacy RAN radio and protocol

SA WG6
Mission-critical applications

Note: The technical work in 3GPP is subdivided into 3 Technical Specification Groups and further into 16 Working Groups that have development responsibilities for specificfunctions and standard documents.8

The sophistication and breadth of
the technology has increased and thecompetition between contributors hasturned fiercer. Today, companies must
invest significantly more to keep up with thepace in 3GPP. This is a sign of the success8

of 3GPP standardization and the value ofthe technology described in the standards.
3GPP has welcomed new contributors thatwere not there from the start (e.g. Huawei,
Intel, Qualcomm, Samsung); other members
have disappeared for various reasons

3GPP, “Specification Groups”, www.3gpp.org/specifications-groups (Accessed October 2018).

(e.g. Nortel, Siemens), while some havemaintained a significant role throughout
the history of 3GPP (e.g. Ericsson, Nokia).
In short, the amount of technology
contributed to 3GPP has grownsignificantly over the years.

8

Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscape

Who are the leading contributors
to the 3GPP standards?

Leading contributors will likely havethe strongest 5G patent portfolios.

In Figure 4, the number of submitted
technical papers to 3GPP per company
from 1999 to 2017 are shown.
The statistics include all 3GPP Working
Groups; today there are 16 Working
Groups that focus on different technicalareas and carry responsibility for
different interfaces (see Figure 3).
As can be seen from Figure 4,
Ericsson is the company that has
taken the strongest responsibility of
specification development in 3GPP,
followed by Huawei, Nokia, Qualcomm,
Alcatel-Lucent and Samsung.

Figure 4: Total number of submitted technical papers to 3GPP, 1999–2017
60,00050,00040,00030,00020,00010,0000Ericsson

Huawei

Nokia

Qualcomm

AlcatelLucent

Samsung

ZTE

LG
Electronics

NTT
DoCoMoCATT

Note: Technical input papers per company submitted to 3GPP, across all Working Groups, counting only the first listed source of a contribution. Alcatel-Lucent was merged
into Nokia in 2016. Adding Alcatel-Lucent’s submitted contributions to Nokia would place Nokia in second place after Ericsson.

9

However, not all Working Groups areequally relevant from an IPR perspective.
In some Working Groups, the work often
results in standardizing technology
enhancements that are patentable anddrive consumer demand. In other groups,
the focus areas less often result in any
standard-essential patents. An exampleof the latter is RAN5 (RAN WG5),
which focuses on conformance testing.
While the work in RAN5 is very important
for worldwide interoperability andconformance, it seldom results inany standard-essential patents.
One way to identify the Working
Groups that have the highest bearing on
IPR is to consult the ETSI IPR declaration
database, where patent owners declare
the patent families they believe may
include (or may include in the future)a protection scope that is required by
the specifications. Those declarations
frequently also include references to thespecifications that the declarant believes
may include the declared IPR; see Figure 5.
These statistics are taken over all
ETSI declarations. The figure shows
unambiguously the importance ofRAN1 and RAN2 (RAN WG1 and WG2),
as companies believe their IPR may
predominantly read on the specifications
produced by these two Working Groups.
RAN1 and RAN2 are engaged in thestandardization of the interfaces
and technology required over the
air between the mobile device andthe network infrastructure.
RAN6 has a high score as well. This isbecause RAN6 has maintained 2G and
3G radio protocols since 2016. For
instance, RAN6 took over responsibilityof the 3G specifications that RAN1 andRAN2 had developed and evolved since

Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscapeFigure 5: Number of citations in ETSI declarations related to 3GPP Working Groups11
RAN1
RAN2
RAN3
RAN4
RAN5
RAN6
SA1
SA2
SA3
SA4
SA5
SA6
CT1
CT3
CT4
CT6
0

5,000

10,00015,00025,000Note: The figure illustrates the Working Groups responsible for the specifications that IPR declarants have referred
to in their ETSI declarations. One count is given for each reference9, and the figure gives a relative measure ofwhere essential IPR is likely to be found.

1999. The high RAN6 score in the figure
above mainly includes older declarations(prior to 2016) originally associated with
RAN1 and RAN2, before those groups
handed the specifications over to RAN6
for maintenance. Thus, landscaping of
RAN1 and RAN2 since 1999 would capture
the 3G activity related to declarations
now associated with RAN610 and this forthe period between 1999 and 2016.
Further, one needs to consider which
Working Groups are relevant for aparticular product category. For example,
RAN3 is associated with a fair share of
ETSI declarations in the figure above, but
the RAN3 work has limited relevance for
consumer devices, such as mobile phones.
Instead, RAN3 is responsible for interfaces
between infrastructure equipment.
RAN3 should therefore be considered
only if one wants to check the impact ofcompanies on these interface solutions
between infrastructure equipment.

	Not all declarations include a reference, and some include multiple. The same family may also be essential tomultiple technologies, such as 4G and 5G, in which case the family may have been declared multiple times.
10	The activity level in RAN6 is very limited today, with less than 20 delegates attending recent meetings. In comparison,
RAN1 and RAN2 meetings typically attract between 300 to 500 registered experts to each group and each meeting.
11	Data in Figure 5 was compiled by Pattern, which is Bird & Bird LLP’s patent intelligenceoffering. www.twobirds.com/en/client-solutions/consulting/pattern
9

20,00010More specifically, a company that
manufactures consumer devices, such asa handset or IoT device compliant with
3GPP specifications, does not need to
implement the technology named in thespecifications within RAN3 responsibility.
The same holds for multiple other groups,
including SA5, CT3 and CT4, where thespecifications under the responsibility ofthese groups have limited or no impact
on consumer devices. While one should
not underestimate the importance of thework in those groups – it’s very important
for the whole architecture to work, which
benefits everyone – that work does not
specifically relate to consumer device IPR.
It’s significant to note here that
Ericsson participates heavily acrossall 3GPP groups. Ericsson has therole of a lead architect, which ensuresthat 3GPP technology as a wholeinteroperates properly. This role can only

Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscapebe performed by a company that is fully
engaged in the standard development.
In addition to RAN1 and RAN2, also
RAN4, SA2, SA3, SA4 and CT1 define
specifications with which consumer
devices must comply. Except for SA4,
we have included these various groups
in our analysis. We excluded the SA4
Working Group, since SA4 works with
codecs and it can be difficult to associate
the SA4 work with a particular generationof cellular technology, such as 3G, 4G
or 5G.12 Further, codecs (e.g. for voice calls)
are not necessarily required by all future
5G devices. Thus, we analyze six groups(RAN1, RAN2, RAN4, SA2, SA3 and CT1)
to estimate the relative IPR portfolio
strength related to consumer devices.
We note that these six groups havealso previously been included in similar
studies by industry analysts Signals
Research Group and ABI Research.

Analyzing approved papers
A compelling filter that can be added
onto the 3GPP contribution data is toanalyze approved contributions only.
The underlying rationale is that only
those submissions that are approved forinclusion into the specifications should be
rewarded in the landscaping. Such results
are shown in Figure 6 below, for the six
Working Groups identified earlier, from1999 until the end of 2017. The source
data is filtered such that it includes
papers identified as relevant for 3G, 4G
and 5G access technologies. The agenda
items of the meetings, under which thecontributions are listed, are used for
identifying the generation of technology
to which each paper pertains. Papers
related to, for example, 2G, IMS, policy
and charging, and network management
are, as a consequence, excluded from thestatistics shown in the figure below.

Figure 6: Multi-mode 3G, 4G and 5G share of approved contributions in six 3GPP Working Groups
Ericsson
Huawei
Nokia
Qualcomm
CATT
NTT DoCoMo
Siemens
Samsung
Alcatel-Lucent
ZTE
LG Electronics
Motorola
Other

Note: Portion of approved contributions to RAN1, RAN2, RAN4, CT1, SA2 and SA3 through the end of 2017.
Ericsson has authored 19 percent of the approved contributions. In case of multiple sourcing companies, only the
first sourcing company is given the credit for each approved contribution.

12Ericsson has also contributed significantly more than any other company in SA4.

11

As can be seen in Figure 6, Ericsson is the
3GPP member that has contributed mostto 3G, 4G and 5G combined between
1999 and 2017. Ericsson has contributed
19 percent of the approved submissions.
The statistics in Figure 6 include technicalpapers all the way back to 1999. We include
this 20-year time horizon because, according
to most jurisdictions, patents have a lifespanof 20 years. Moreover, a new generationof cellular technology does not appear ina vacuum. Some solutions that have been
proven powerful in a previous generation
are inherited by the next, with new
performance-enhancing improvements andrefinements added. This means that somepatents that are essential for one generation
will also be essential for the next generation,in addition to all the new inventions thathave been discovered after the creationof the earlier generation of technology.

Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscapeNarrowing the timescale
In Figure 7, we have narrowed thescope of these statistics in two ways.
First, we have excluded 3G from thestatistics, meaning that the relevant
3GPP data in practice now goes back toaround 2006, when 4G standardization
began. Comparing Figure 6 andFigure 7, it can be seen that limiting
the time horizon by excluding 3G willlift some companies that have joined
3GPP later. And some companies thatare seen in Figure 6 no longer exist orotherwise have left the 3GPP arena,
vanishing from Figure 7 below. Secondly,
we have limited Figure 7 to the two most
relevant 3GPP Working Groups for 4G
and 5G access technologies, namely
RAN1 and RAN2. As can be seen here,
Ericsson is still in the lead with morethan 16 percent of all approved papers.

Figure 7: Multi-mode 4G and 5G share of approved contributions in RAN1 and RAN2
Ericsson
Huawei
Nokia
Qualcomm
Samsung
LG Electronics
NTT DoCoMo
CATT
Intel
ZTE
Alcatel-Lucent
Panasonic
Other

Note: Portion of approved contributions to RAN1 and RAN2 for multi-mode 4G/5G through the endof 2017. Ericsson is the first source in more than 16 percent of the papers. In case of multiple sourcing
companies, only the first sourcing company is given the credit for each approved contribution.

12

Approved
Submitted

18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Panasonic

Alcatel-Lucent

ZTE

Intel

CATT

NTT DoCoMo

LG Electronics

Samsung

Qualcomm

Nokia

Huawei

Note: Comparison of approved contributions versus submitted in RAN1 and RAN2, for 4G/5G multi-mode throughthe end of 2017. Leading contributors appear to have a higher acceptance rate than average. In case of multiple
sourcing companies, only the first sourcing company is given the credit for each approved contribution.

Figure 9: Comparison of crediting first-source versus crediting
all sources of approved contributions for 4G and 5GFirst-source credit
Multi-source credit

18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Panasonic

Alcatel-Lucent

ZTE

Intel

CATT

NTT DoCoMo

LG Electronics

Samsung

Qualcomm

Nokia

HuaweiEricssonCrediting all co-sourcing companies
Another issue is whether the first sourceof the paper should be given all credit, or if
equal credit should be given to all co-sourcing
companies.15 One may expect that the latter
option would favor followers at the expenseof the first authors, since the collaborative
character of 3GPP encourages companies
to seek support through co-sourcing
members that would endorse the proposal.
This expectation is supported by the resultsin Figure 9, where we have done such a
comparison. As seen here, leading companies
generally appear slightly stronger when
only the first-sourcing company is credited.
This might be due to a possible trend where
those in 3GPP who contribute less but follow
the development closely are willing to co-sign
the solutions they believe in. Such followers
would be credited more with an approachthat gives equal credit to all co-signers.

Figure 8: Comparison of approved versus submitted
contributions for 4G and 5G

EricssonApproved versus submitted papers
Analyzing the effect of counting approved
contributions versus all submitted papers
can be of interest. In the following,
we have compared approved submissions(same as in Figure 7) with submitted
contributions.13 As can be seen in
Figure 8, leading companies more often
get a higher score when approved papers
are considered.14 One possible explanation
for this could be that the technical input
from leading companies is of better
quality on average and therefore receives
higher support at the meetings. This could
be due to earlier and more substantial
R&D of the technology by those leading
companies, a broader understanding of
the interrelationships among technology
proposals across the entire technology
architecture, or credibility and trust
gained over the course of technology
development. For some of the leading
companies, such as Ericsson, the portionof approved papers is remarkably higher
than the portion of submitted ones.

Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscape

Note: Comparison between only crediting the first-sourcing company (as in previous figures) and crediting allcontributing companies equally. The data is for approved contributions in RAN1 and RAN2 classified as relevant
for 4G and 5G through the end of 2017.

 ubmitted contributions include all technical input papers (excluding, for example, duplicates, editor/rapporteur’s updates and administrative documents)
S
that each company has submitted to the concerned Working Group. Thus, submitted also includes approved.
14
It is important to note that companies focused or specialized in a particular field that is being standardized by a particular Working Group (e.g. security features)
can have even higher ratios of approved vs. non-approved submissions. However, the numbers considered in Figure 8 apply to the top contributing companies
that are usually active in most of the Working Groups relevant to the current exercise. The leading companies are all active in multiple 3GPP Working Groups.
15 
Equal credit is given to each co-sourcing company by dividing one credit per approved paper among the co-sourcing companies. If there are three co-sourcing companies,
each company is given one-third of a credit.
13

13

Analyzing 5G input papers in isolation
The next step in the analysis is tolandscape the papers classified as
5G alone. Leaving out 4G from theanalysis means that we in practice only
measure 3GPP impact during the last
two years, since papers classified as
5G began in greater numbers only from2016 onwards. But 5G did not appear
in a vacuum. Already in 2011, Ericsson
started to lead the industry discussions
around 5G, scoping out 5G services
and requirements, and researchingand developing the 5G technicalconcept.16 In addition, 5G is based onsome solutions already introduced inprevious releases of the 4G specifications.
Indeed, the first version of 5G, which
was completed in December 2017,17
is non-standalone 5G and is intended towork only in close conjunction with 4G
through dual connectivity (also identified
as NSA, EN-DC, or E-UTRA NR dual
connectivity). So, while analyzing 5G
alone can give some additional valuable
insights, looking at aggregated 4G
plus 5G statistics is still meaningful.

Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscapeAlso, in analyzing 5G alone, there is achallenge when considering the approvalrate in RAN1 and RAN2. We know thatthe first intermediate solution of 5G,
the non-standalone (NSA) version, wascompleted by 3GPP in December 2017.
This was the result of tremendous efforts
by participating companies, and the resultof thousands of decisions made in the
two Working Groups. However, the total
number of approved contributions does
not correlate well with the amount of workand the number of decisions made. In fact,
while the papers classified as technicalinput to RAN1 and RAN2 for 5G add up
to more than 17,000 in our statistics,
the approved ones (after filtering away
papers such as rapporteur or editor’s
updates, administrative documents, etc.)
result in fewer than 200. One reason
for the low number of approved papers
is that these Working Groups havenowadays implemented work procedures
where company submissions are seldom
approved as submitted. This is particularly
true during early standard development,
when the specifications are not yet

under revision control. Instead, separate
proposals in the papers are often endorsedby the Working Groups and then captured,e.g. by a work-item or specification
rapporteur. This makes it harder to identify
the origin of the included technology bylandscaping the origin of approved papers.
As a consequence, below wehave illustrated the landscape of thesubmitted papers, using the multi-source
crediting method. This should give a
conservative estimate of the expected
5G patent landscape of the leaders in
3GPP, since both the multi-sourcing
approach and the landscaping ofsubmitted papers (as opposed toapproved) appear to underestimate
the influence of leading companies.
As seen in Figure 10, Ericsson provided
the most technical input documents by
the end of 2017, followed closely by thenext two companies. Since we analyzed
input documents rather than approved
documents, we expect that the leaders in
3GPP are in reality responsible for a higher
fraction of the technology incorporated into
the agreed standard (see Figure 8).

Figure 10: 5G single mode, share of submitted contributions in
RAN1 and RAN2, all co-sourcing companies given equal credit
EricssonSamsung
HuaweiLG Electronics
Nokia
Intel
Qualcomm
ZTE
CATT
NTT DoCoMo
Mediatek
InterDigital
Other
I n May 2016, long before any significant numberof 5G contributions started to appear in 3GPP,
Ericsson filed its landmark 5G patent application– the largest patent application ever in cellularcommunications in terms of number of inventors(130). Thus, analyzing 5G contributions is informative,
but one needs to appreciate that the 5G technology
development was an ongoing effort initiatedmuch before 2016 as an evolution over 4G.
17
3GPP, “First 5G NR Specs Approved”,
www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1929nsa_nr_5g (Accessed September 2018).
16

Note: Share of technical input documents to RAN1 and RAN2 related to 5G through the end of 2017. Each sourcing
company is given equal credit. Ericsson provided the most technical input documents through the end of 2017,
followed closely by the next two companies. Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent are here credited as a single entity.

14

Summary

In this report, we have analyzed the 3GPP
landscape as a proxy for estimating 5G
patent and technology leadership.

At the moment, it is not yet possible togain any trustworthy analysis of the
future 5G patent landscape by analyzing
patent declarations and patent databases
alone. However, information about those
impacting 3GPP standardization isalready now readily available. It seems
plausible that those companies thathave had the most significant impact
on the technology defined in the 3G,
4G and 5G specifications will also havethe most significant patent portfolios.
3GPP impact is therefore a good leading
indicator of patent portfolio strength.
In our analysis, we have taken multiple
viewpoints of 3GPP impact. It is clear that,no matter which viewpoint one takes,
Ericsson is the leader in 3GPP and has
influenced the technology in 5G over theyears more than any other contributor.

Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscape

15

Ericsson 5G leadership facts

Ericsson is the leader in 3GPP and the lead
influencer in developing the technology in 5G.

Here are some further proof points ofour 5G standardization leadership:— Since 1999, Ericsson has madeapproximately 50,000 contributions
to 3GPP to develop 2G, 3G, 4G
and 5G – that’s 15,000 morethan any other company.
— As early as 2011, Ericsson started tolead the industry discussions around
5G, scoping out 5G services andrequirements, and researching anddeveloping the 5G technical concept.
— Ericsson currently holds the mostchairmanships and vice chairman
positions in 3GPP. The chair iselected among 3GPP members.
— Ericsson’s 5G technical contributions
have been recognized withnumerous 5G awards.
— Ericsson is so confident in its impact on,
and contribution to, 5G standardizationthat in March 2017 we articulated our
5G licensing conditions for handsets
ahead of the standard definition.
— To date, we have declared to ETSI that
more than 1,400 Ericsson inventions
could be essential for 5G. Release 15of the 5G/NR standard was finalizedin June 2018. This was set to reveal
the number of essential patents, andthis number should increase on arolling basis as patents are issued.
— In November 2017, we made public
our landmark 5G patent application,
incorporating numerous Ericsson
inventions into a complete architecture
for the 5G network standard, which
we filed as a pioneering 5G patentapplication already in Q2 2016.
This was the largest patent application
ever in cellular communicationsin terms of number of inventors(130) anywhere in the world.

Ericsson | Estimating the future 5G patent landscapeEricsson enables communications service providers
to capture the full value of connectivity. The company’s
portfolio spans Networks, Digital Services, Managed
Services, and Emerging Business and is designed tohelp our customers go digital, increase efficiency andfind new revenue streams. Ericsson’s investments ininnovation have delivered the benefits of telephonyand mobile broadband to billions of people aroundthe world. The Ericsson stock is listed on Nasdaq
Stockholm and on Nasdaq New York.
www.ericsson.com

EricssonSE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden
Telephone +46 10 719 0000
www.ericsson.com

The content of this document is subject torevision without notice due to continued
progress in methodology, design andmanufacturing. Ericsson shall have noliability for any error or damage of any kind
resulting from the use of this document

EAB-18:011666 Uen Rev. B© Ericsson 2019