- Identifying search criteria in order to identify potentially relevant set of candidate patents (the so-called candidate set)
- Detailing the results of the searches
- Technically reviewing the patents
- Categorising the reviewed patents and estimating an overall size of the SEP landscape
This report is based on a review of patents by Cubicibuc’s technical team.
Cubicibuc’s landscaping methodology is based on established approaches and contains four main steps:
Search terms are based on multiple criteria, and from multiple sources:
- A small number of ITU member companies have made specific declarations to the ITU against G.709. We therefore have a small sample of declared patents which can be further analysed in order to determine patent characteristics, IPC codes and keywords
- The ITU-T G.709 technical recommendation is used to identify search criteria – technical keywords
- We also used forwards and backwards citations from those patents declared to ITU
For each patent in the Review Set we reviewed the claim language against the normative text in the technical recommendation. In our analysis we describe, in a few sentences, the basis of our conclusion and where appropriate the section of the ITU-T G.709 recommendation to which the patent maps.
|Essentiality assessment categories||Description|
|1 – Potentially Essential||Potentially Technically Essential – all elements of the claim language map to normative text in the ITU-T G.709 technical recommendation|
|2 – Relevant||Not technically essential – not fully mapped to normative text in the ITU-T G.709 technical recommendation|
Possibly relevant. May relate to implementations of ITU-T G.709.
|3 – Not relevant||Not technically essential – not relevant to ITU-T G.709|
The results of our analysis are captured in Cubicibuc’s ITU-T G.709 SEP Landscape report.
For more information about our reports, to purchase copies, or to request specific analysis, please get in touch.