https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/adaptive-bitrate-streaming-segment-selection-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Telecommunications

Adaptive Bitrate Streaming Segment Selection Algorithm Patents

A 16-family dataset on adaptive bitrate segment selection, rate adaptation and bitrate switching patents, with filers and IPC coverage.

57
Published Records
16
Simple Patent Families
51%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

57 published records collapse into 16 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 29 of 57 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • This search returns 16 simple patent families across 57 published records. No single filer holds more than 2 of the 16 families.
  • Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) is named on 2 of the 16 families, the most of any listed filer. The other 13 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • H04L (digital information transmission) and H04N (pictorial communication) cover 62.5% and 50.0% of the 16 families respectively. These are the only two classes above a sixth of the families in scope.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This page reports results for the search string TAC:(("adaptive bitrate" OR "dynamic adaptive streaming") AND ("segment selection" OR "bitrate switching" OR "rate adaptation")), retrieved on 2026-10-27. It returns 16 simple patent families and 57 published records, with legal status checked at retrieval: 29 of the 57 records (51%) were granted and still in force at that date. No date limit was set on the search, so the set spans whatever filing dates the matching text happens to carry rather than a defined period.

16 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, and the page is best read as a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished map.

Records and families in scope
  1. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)2
  2. SYMBIOSIS INT DEEMED UNIV1
  3. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES INC1
  4. VERIMATRIX INC1
  5. NANJING UNIV1
  6. ADOBE INC1
  7. AMAZON TECH INC1
  8. VERIZON PATENT & LICENSING INC1
  9. INTEL CORP1
  10. OPENEXCHANGE INC1

Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (4 here); that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 14 of the 14 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 14 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Adaptive Bitrate Streaming Segment Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
Data

Filing activity and technology split

Two views of the same 16 families: when the underlying applications were first filed, and which IPC subclasses their claims touch.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

Published records by earliest filing year run from 9 in 2013 up to a peak of 10 in 2014, tapering to 0 by 2026. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the recent end of the line understates eventual counts; this series counts documents, not de-duplicated inventions, so a single invention filed in several countries adds more than one mark.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)0358109201310201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025020262022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two.

IPC subclass coverage (share of 16 families)

H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 62.5% of the 16 families and H04N (pictorial communication) on 50.0%; because a family can carry more than one class, these shares add up to more than 100%. The remaining subclasses the chart shows each sit under a sixth of the families and are not characterised here.

IPC subclass coverage (share of 16 families)H04L · Digital information transmissi…1062.5%H04N · Pictorial communication (video…850.0%G06F · Electric digital data processi…212.5%G06N · Computing based on AI models16.3%G06T · Image data processing & genera…16.3%G07B · Ticket & fare-registering16.3%G10L · Speech & audio analysis/synthe…16.3%

Shares are the percentage of the 16 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Adaptive Bitrate Streaming Segment Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Adaptive Bitrate Streaming Segment Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about adaptive bitrate streaming segment selection algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

A record from the result set

First record returned, database default order
US10033777B22018-07-24

Multi-hypothesis rate adaptation for HTTP streaming (US10033777B2)

INTERDIGITAL PATENT HOLDINGS, INC.

The abstract describes a multi-hypothesis rate adaptation technique for wireless multimedia streaming: a client requests a first portion of content from a server, a proxy responds with that portion plus information on a second portion, the client requests the proxy deliver the second portion, and a change in a session parameter detected from proxy data can trigger a rate change.This is simply the first record the search returns under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set, and nothing about the field can be inferred from it alone.

US10033777B2, patent drawing 1US10033777B2, patent drawing 2
View full record

Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Adaptive Bitrate Streaming Segment Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
Fastest

Eureka on the web

When you want the answer in the next five minutes.

The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.

Run your analysis now →
For builders

MCP server & REST API

When it has to run inside your own pipeline.

Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.

Browse MCP servers →
Insights

Reading the numbers

Three figures worth sitting with before treating this set as a map of anyone's portfolio.

Scope
16 families / 57 records
families vs. published records

Two different counts, one dataset

The search returns 16 simple patent families de-duplicated across countries, and 57 published records counted per publication. Legal status was checked at retrieval: 29 of the 57 records (51%) were granted and still in force on 2026-10-27.

Status changes continuously and is not a measure of claim strength.
Largest single filer
2 of 16 families
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

No filer holds more than 2 families

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) is named on 2 of the 16 families (12.5%), the most of any row in the listed filers. The other 13 listed filers each hold 2 or fewer families, and these rows are not summed here because one family can name more than one filer.

The listed filers are organisations; individual-named filings sit inside the totals but not in this row list.
Technology split
62.5% / 50.0%
H04L vs. H04N share of 16 families

Two IPC subclasses above a sixth of families

H04L (digital information transmission) covers 10 of the 16 families and H04N (pictorial communication) covers 8 of the 16. Because a family can carry several IPC classes, these two shares add up to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive groupings.

Every other subclass in the chart sits below this level and is not broken out in prose.
Filing window
2013 - 2026
earliest filing years in the trend chart

Recent years are still filling in

The filing-trend chart counts published records by earliest filing year, running from 9 in 2013 to a peak of 10 in 2014 and down to 0 by 2026. Years from 2022 onward are shown shaded because publication lag means they have not yet reached their eventual count.

This series counts documents, not de-duplicated inventions.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to adaptive bitrate streaming segment selection algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Adaptive Bitrate Streaming Segment Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this from here

This page is a starting point built from one search string, not a finished freedom-to-operate review.

Pull the granted claims directly

Family and IPC counts cannot tell you what any specific claim set requires. Reading the granted claims of records that look close to a design under review is the only way to assess overlap.

Open the full record set in Eureka

Widen or vary the search string

A 16-family result from one boolean string is sensitive to the exact terms used. Running variant phrasings in Eureka can surface records this search string did not catch.

Explore related searches in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Adaptive Bitrate Streaming Segment Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Adaptive Bitrate Streaming Segment Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Adaptive Bitrate Streaming Segment Selection Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole adaptive bitrate streaming segment selection algorithm patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean

Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:

TAC:(("adaptive bitrate" OR "dynamic adaptive streaming") AND ("segment selection" OR "bitrate switching" OR "rate adaptation"))

Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field. One subclass (H04L) carries 62.5% of the patent families, so this search returned a classification-tight set.

What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 57 records and 16 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.

Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list (4 of them here). Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 14 of the 14 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 14 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included

Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-27.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (29 of 57). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka

Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level

Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.

Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.

Patent data carries limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.

Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.

The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.