https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/cabac-arithmetic-coding-engine-for-video-compression-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Video Compression

CABAC Arithmetic Coding Engine Patents in Video Compression

Data on 600 CABAC arithmetic-coding patent families across 3,814 records, led by Qualcomm with a long tail of smaller filers.

3,814
Published Records
600
Simple Patent Families
19%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
65%
In Force at Cut-off

3,814 published records collapse into 600 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. QUALCOMM INC is named on 115 of the 600 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 2,465 of 3,814 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 600 simple patent families and 3,814 published records match this CABAC search string, with no date limit applied.
  • Qualcomm Inc holds the largest single share named on 115 of the 600 families (19.2%), ahead of the fifth-placed filer at 20 families.
  • 35 of the 89 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, indicating a long tail below the names at the top of the table.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This landscape covers 600 simple patent families and 3,814 published records matching a search for CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) combined with video or codec terms and encoding or decoding terms. The search string sets no date limit, so the set spans every matching record the database holds, not a fixed window of years. H04N (pictorial communication / video & TV) appears on 91.8% of the families in scope, the highest share of any IPC subclass returned by this search.

Of the 3,814 published records, 2,465 (65%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. That figure describes legal status at a point in time, not a measure of claim strength or commercial outcome.

Families vs. records in scope
  1. QUALCOMM INC115
  2. HUAWEI TECH CO LTD24
  3. CANON KK23
  4. INTERDIGITAL CE PATENT HOLDINGS SAS23
  5. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD20
  6. SONY GROUP CORP19
  7. HFI INNOVATION INC18
  8. BYTEDANCE INC15
  9. INTERDIGITAL VC HOLDINGS INC13
  10. BEIJING DAJIA INTERNET INFORMATION TECH CO LTD13

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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (INTERDIGITAL CE PATENT HOLDINGS SAS, INTERDIGITAL VC HOLDINGS INC). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (11 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 30 of the 89 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 89 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 CABAC Arithmetic Coding Engine for Video Compression Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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
The Numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

The figures below are drawn directly from the dataset: a filing trend counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.

Filing trend by earliest filing year

Published records by earliest filing year run from 88 in 2007 to a peak of 679 in 2012. Years from 2022 onward are shaded as still filling in: recent filings take up to 18-30 months to publish, so the last few years understate eventual totals and should not be read as a decline.

Filing trend by earliest filing year0200400600800882007200920116792013201520172019202120232025302022 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. This chart covers 2007-2026 (3,624 records); the 3,814 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

H04N (pictorial communication, video/TV) is named on 551 of the 600 families in scope (91.8%). Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, subclass shares sum to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive.

Technology composition by IPC subclassH04N · Pictorial communication (video…55191.8%H03M · Coding & code conversion7111.8%G06T · Image data processing & genera…183.0%G06F · Electric digital data processi…172.8%H04L · Digital information transmissi…81.3%H04B · Transmission (general)71.2%G06K · Data recognition & presentation50.8%G06N · Computing based on AI models30.5%Other40.7%

Shares are the percentage of the 600 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 CABAC Arithmetic Coding Engine for Video Compression Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on CABAC Arithmetic Coding Engine for Video Compression Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cabac arithmetic coding engine for video compression patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record Example

A record from the result set

First record returned
US7535387B12009-05-19

Methods and systems for implementing context adaptive binary arithmetic coding

XILINX, INC.

An entropy encoder module is configured to completely perform normalization of each binary input in a single clock cycle for Context Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (CABAC). Outstanding bits are separated out from other bits of a portion of a frame for CABAC. The outstanding bits are parsed responsive to location marking, counting, and bit masking to provide insert bits. The insert bits are inserted into the encoded bitstream for output. A CABAC system includes digital information storage having digital video information stored therein, and a CABAC encoder coupled to perform the described normalization.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. Its presence here says nothing about its standing among the other 599 families.

US7535387B1, patent drawing 1US7535387B1, 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 CABAC Arithmetic Coding Engine for Video Compression Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 →
Key Figures

Reading the filer and technology data

Three figures worth holding onto before looking at the full tables.

Largest filer
115 families
Qualcomm Inc, of 600 total

Single largest row in the filer list

Qualcomm Inc is named on 115 of the 600 simple patent families in scope, a 19.2% share. This is a count of named families only; it does not indicate claim scope or portfolio value.

Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and cannot be summed across rows.
Long tail
35 of 89
filers hold 2 or fewer families

Spread among the listed filers

Among the 89 listed filers, 35 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This indicates many organisations with a small number of filings alongside a smaller group with larger counts.

The filer list returns organisations only; individual-named filings are excluded from this list but remain in the totals.
Technology concentration
91.8%
of 600 families carry H04N

IPC subclass with the highest share

H04N (pictorial communication, video/TV) appears on 551 of the 600 families in scope. Because families can carry multiple IPC classes, this share is not exclusive of other classes also present.

12 subclasses were returned in total; shares are measured against the same 600-family denominator.
Legal status
65%
of 3,814 records in force

Granted and in force at retrieval

2,465 of 3,814 published records were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-20 retrieval date. This is a snapshot of legal status, not a success rate or a quality signal.

The remaining records are not broken out into pending, withdrawn or lapsed categories here.
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 cabac arithmetic coding engine for video compression 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 CABAC Arithmetic Coding Engine for Video Compression Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Going deeper on specific filers or claims

The figures here describe filing volume and classification patterns. Questions about claim scope, freedom to operate, or how a specific filer's portfolio is structured call for direct review of the granted documents.

Pull the granted claims

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent covers. Reviewing the granted claim set directly is the only way to assess scope for a specific filing.

Explore in Eureka →

Track filer-level detail

The filer table shows the top 30 of 89 listed organisations by family count. Looking up a specific name's full record set gives a clearer picture than the ranked list alone.

Search filers 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 CABAC Arithmetic Coding Engine for Video Compression Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 CABAC Arithmetic Coding Engine for Video Compression Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research CABAC Arithmetic Coding Engine for Video Compression Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole cabac arithmetic coding engine for video compression 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:((CABAC OR "context adaptive binary arithmetic coding") AND (video OR codec) AND (encod* OR decod*))

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 (H04N) carries 91.8% 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 3,814 records and 600 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 (11 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 30 of the 89 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 89 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 2026-10-20.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (2,465 of 3,814). 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.

Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.

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.