ipr chal l enges t r igger ed by t h e ict transformation · pdf fileericsson internal ... is...

$: IPR chal l enges t r igger ed by t h e ICT transformation · PDF fileEricsson Internal ... is very similar to the EPC architecture and the WCDMA and LTE ar\ൣhitecture will be the$
Gabriele Mohsler Vice President Patent Development Ericsson

IPR c h a l l en g es t r ig g er ed by t h e ICT t r a n s f o r m a t io n

Ericsson Internal | © Ericsson AB 2016 | 2016-03-21 | Page 2

Th e Ne t w o r k e d So c ie t y

1G 2G 3G 4G 5G

1980 2010 2000

10

30

50

26 billion connected devices

5 billion connected people

1 billion connected places

20

40

Con

nect

ions

(billi

on)

2020

Our vision 50 billion connected devices

Analog GSM UMTS LTE Networked Society


Ve r y d if f e r e n t d e m a n d s o n n e t w o r k – a d d r e s s e d b y 5G

The Network @

Network Slicing

Software Defined Networking (SDN)

Virtualization & Cloud - demanded by NW operators

Machine Type Communication (MTC), Internet of Things (IoT)


› Virtualization is a technique for using computing resources and devices in a completely functional manner regardless of their physical layout or location. E.g. splitting physical machines into virtual machines and/or combining multiple physical storages into one virtual storage.

› Software defined networking (SDN) is the possibility of making network control programmable. It is based on a separation of network control and forwarding functions. Lower functional layers (infrastructure) are abstracted into virtual services.

› Cloud computing is generally a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources. It relies on virtualization as “enabler technology”, and may make use of SDN.

De f in it io n s

Vorführender

Präsentationsnotizen

Source: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf On-demand self-service. A consumer can unilaterally provision computing capabilities, such as server time and network storage, as needed automatically without requiring human interaction with each service provider. Broad network access. Capabilities are available over the network and accessed through standard mechanisms that promote use by heterogeneous thin or thick client platforms (e.g., mobile phones, tablets, laptops, and workstations). Resource pooling. The provider’s computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to consumer demand. There is a sense of location independence in that the customer generally has no control or knowledge over the exact location of the provided resources but may be able to specify location at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., country, state, or datacenter). Examples of resources include storage, processing, memory, and network bandwidth. Rapid elasticity. Capabilities can be elastically provisioned and released, in some cases automatically, to scale rapidly outward and inward commensurate with demand. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be appropriated in any quantity at any time. Measured service. Cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service. There is a lot of hype around the term “cloud” today. Many traditional client/server applications have been branded as “cloud” if they store data remotely, even though they do not use cloud technology or fit the definition.


Claim on nodes or products, combination of dedicated

Hard- and Software

Relevant functionality lies in Application Software, running

on (more or less) standard hardware

Native Virtualized


SAPC

EPG EPG

SGSN-MME SGSN-

MME

› 2G/3G/4G common core › Pooling for high

availability

Er ic s s o n Ne t w o r k e v o l u t io n

› VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling › Initial Cloud/NFV

deployments

› Scaling for ICT & 50B devices

› New architecture principles - C/U split, SDN, Slicing

Multi-access Mobile Broadband

4.5G, 5G and Networked Society

Mobile Broadband evolution

SGSN-MME

EPG

SAPC

HSS HSS

2G 3G 4G

Internet

EPG EPG

SGSN-MME SGSN

-MME SGSN-MME

EPG HSS HSS

2G 3G 4G

Internet

WMG

Wi-Fi

VoLTE/ IMS

SAPC SAPC

SGSN-MME

EPG

2G 3G 4G

Internet

Wi-Fi

VoLTE/ IMS

5G

IoT

EPC virtual network functions

EPC EPC EPC

Slicing

NFV & SDN

3GDT

Vorführender


The starting point for a (GSMA) operator considering or even aiming to evolve the network to support LTE, is normally a 2G and/or 3G network. The 2G/3G operator may or may not support 3GDT in the network, even though the starting point in this figure illlustrates a 3GDT enabled network. As the 3GDT architecture is very similar to the EPC architecture and the WCDMA and LTE architecture will be the same ’above’ the RNC (in WCDMA), it is recommended to implement 3GDT as a first step of the Packet Core evolution. The Multi-access Mobile Broadband, adding the 4G/LTE access is a software enabled evolution to the 3GDT architecture. The Target architecture for commercial services as recommended by Ericsson, is to have a common Packet Core for all accesses, i.e. a combined SGSN-MME in pool, a PDN/Serving GW as the common anchor point and gateway to external networks, a common Policy controller (SAPC), and a common User Management system (HSS/HLR). Also the Charging can be the same with an interface to the PDN/Serving GW. The feature set does not necessarily need to be the same over all accesses, but can be independent of access technology. The benefit of a common Packet Core is an optimal capacity usage across access technologies, where especially the capacity of the SGSN-MMEs, PDN/Serving GWs and the Policy Controllers (SAPCs) are shared dynamically between subscribers present in the different accesses. The Mobile Broadband evolution focus on integrating voice services, both over LTE and Wi-Fi access, and to further optimize the EPC architecture with fully integrated Wi-Fi access over trusted or un-trusted with Policy and Charging Control (PCC) enabling Network controlled Quality-of-Service supporting the advanced QCI classes Voice and Interactive. The third step 4.5G and 5G and Networked Society focus on scaling for new (currently unseen?) services, network sizes and characteristics. With the SDN/Virtualized architecture, evolution suggests different ”Network Slices” be used for specific business purposes, where some (or all) may further separate the Control/User Plane.


IPR As p e c t s & Ch a l l e n g e s

New technologies must be patentable

How to prove infringement in cloud-related patents?

How to draft patent applications for the cloud?

How to secure return on invested R&D from patents in view of increased Open

Source usage?


B

IPR Im p a c t – Dis t r ib u t e d s o l u t io n s

A B

C D

Ne t w o r k n o d e

B

Vorführender


But what happens in case some of these functions are moved to one or more data centers? Would a claim comprising features A, B, C and D still cover such an implementation? What if the distríbuted functions B and C are performed by vendors other than the one producing the network node?


IPR Im p a c t – Dis t r ib u t e d s o l u t io n s

B C Co u n t r y X Co u n t r y Y Co u n t r y Z

A

D

Vorführender


What if the distríbuted functions B and C are performed by different users AND/OR in different countries? So, as you can see there is a number of challenges in claim drafting and interpretation when facing the new network paradigm. The question is, how can this be handled?


No d e c l a im Ne t w o r k n o d e c o n f ig u r e d t o : • r e c e iv e a m e s s a g e f r o m a UE; • a n a l y z e t h e r e c e iv e d m e s s a g e ;

• d e t e r m in e a n a c t io n t o b e p e r f o r m e d b a s e d

o n a r e s u l t o f t h e a n a l y s is ; a n d

• t r a n s m it t in g a n e w m e s s a g e t o t h e UE b a s e d o n t h e d e t e r m in e d a c t io n .

A B C D


Sy s t e m c l a im

Sy s t e m / a r r a n g e m e n t c o n f ig u r e d t o : • r e c e iv e a m e s s a g e f r o m a UE;

• a n a l y z e t h e r e c e iv e d m e s s a g e ;

• d e t e r m in e a n a c t io n t o b e p e r f o r m e d b a s e d

o n a r e s u l t o f t h e a n a l y s is ; a n d • t r a n s m it t in g a n e w m e s s a g e t o t h e UE b a s e d

o n t h e d e t e r m in e d a c t io n .

A B C D


Sy s t e m c l a im (a n a l y z in g ) Sy s t e m / a r r a n g e m e n t c o n f ig u r e d t o : • a n a l y z e a m e s s a g e f r o m a UE, a r e s u l t o f

t h e a n a l y s is e n a b l in g d e t e r m in a t io n o f a n a c t io n t o b e p e r f o r m e d ; a n d

• in it ia t e t r a n s m is s io n o f a n e w m e s s a g e t o

t h e UE b a s e d o n t h e d e t e r m in e d a c t io n .

A B C D


Sy s t e m c l a im (d e t e r m in a t io n ) Sy s t e m / a r r a n g e m e n t c o n f ig u r e d t o : • d e t e r m in e , b a s e d o n a r e s u l t o f a n a n a l y s is

o f a m e s s a g e s e n t f r o m a UE, a n a c t io n t o b e p e r f o r m e d ; a n d

• in it ia t e t r a n s m is s io n o f a n e w m e s s a g e t o

t h e UE b a s e d o n t h e d e t e r m in e d a c t io n .

A B C D


OLG d ü s s e l d o r f 2 U 51/0 8 “Pr e p a id -Ka r t e n II”

› Performing of steps of a claimed method in foreign country constitutes in certain circumstances neverteless infringement

› Here: Infringement affirmed, as carrying out of one of several necessary measures in the country of the patent is sufficient, if the other measures performed abroad can be attributed to the person acting inland

-> Will an apparatus claim (node, system) be judged in the same way?


In f r in g e m e n t & Va l id it y c o n s id e r a t io n s

› Will considerations for method claims also apply for apparatus claims?

› Will the “new” wording of claims be sufficient to substantiate infringement?

› Will the prior art base become broader due to indirect and functional language?

=> Interpretation of claims will become even more important, both for infringement and for validity determination

ipr chal l enges t r igger ed by t h e ict transformation · pdf fileericsson internal ... is...

Documents