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 →518 patent families and 3,371 records on CABAC encoder/decoder design, led by Qualcomm with 21% share and a long tail of smaller filers.
3,371 published records collapse into 518 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. QUALCOMM INC is named on 109 of the 518 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 In force = 2,226 of 3,371 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape draws on a search for CABAC (Context Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding) and the longer phrase "context adaptive binary arithmetic coding", combined with video codec, video coding or encoder terms, across title, abstract and claims. The search carries no date limit, so the 518 simple patent families and 3,371 published records in scope reflect every matching filing the database holds, not a fixed year window. CABAC is the entropy-coding stage used in video compression standards, and this dataset groups filings that describe engines, pipelines or hardware implementations for that stage.
Of the 3,371 published records, 2,226 (66%) were granted and still in force at retrieval. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated out further here.
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 (MEDIATEK SINGAPORE PTE LTD, MEDIATEK 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 (15 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 85 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 85 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.
The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing-trend chart counted in published records by earliest filing year, and an IPC composition chart counted in simple patent families.
Published records rose from 137 in 2018 to 143 in 2021, a 4% increase over that span. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so that stretch of the chart understates eventual totals and should not be read as a decline.
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 (3,273 records); the 3,371 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
H04N (pictorial communication, covering video and TV) appears on 468 of the 518 simple patent families in scope, 90.3% of the total. Families can carry more than one IPC class, so this share is not exclusive of other classifications present in the dataset.
Shares are the percentage of the 518 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cabac context adaptive binary arithmetic coding engine design patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaAn entropy encoder module is configured to completely perform normalization of each binary input in a single clock cycle for CABAC. Outstanding bits are separated out from other bits of a portion of a frame, parsed responsive to location marking, counting and bit masking to provide insert bits, which are then inserted into the encoded bitstream for output. The system includes digital information storage holding digital video information and a CABAC encoder coupled to it.US7535387B1, filed by Xilinx, Inc., published 2009-05-19. This is simply the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, breadth or significance.


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.
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 →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 →Three figures from this dataset describe how filing is distributed and where the technology concentrates, without ranking the field or any single filer beyond what the counts state.
Qualcomm Inc is named on 109 of the 518 simple patent families in scope, a 21.0% share. This is the count attached to that one row; it is not combined with any other row, and related-looking names elsewhere in the list are not summed into it.
Of the 85 organisations returned by this search, 41 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The remaining rows, including the largest at 109 families, account for the rest of the spread across the listed filers.
The IPC subclass H04N (pictorial communication, video/TV) is present on 468 of the 518 simple patent families in scope. Because a family can carry multiple IPC classes, this share is not exclusive, and other subclasses in the chart also appear on some of the same families.
At the 2026-10-21 retrieval date, 2,226 of the 3,371 published records (66%) were granted and still in force. This is a snapshot of legal status at that date, not a measure of filing quality or a success rate, and it will keep changing as records lapse or grant.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cabac context adaptive binary arithmetic coding engine design patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures above describe the shape of this dataset. Reading specific claim sets, tracking a single filer's activity over time, or checking how a design compares against granted claims requires looking past the counts.
Family and IPC counts describe where filings sit, not what any single claim set requires. Pulling the granted claims for a specific record is the only way to assess scope.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaThe 2018–2021 window shown here is the most recent complete stretch; later years are still publishing in. Monitoring updates as new records appear keeps a watch list current.
Set up monitoring in Patsnap EurekaThe 85 listed filers include a long tail beneath the largest rows. Reviewing individual filer portfolios one at a time avoids the overlap problem that comes from summing rows.
Analyze filers in Patsnap EurekaThis dataset contains 518 simple patent families and 3,371 published records matching a search for CABAC or context adaptive binary arithmetic coding combined with video codec, video coding or encoder terms. A family groups the same invention across countries, while a record counts each individual publication, so the two numbers measure different things and are not interchangeable. The search carries no date limit, so this reflects every matching filing the database holds rather than a fixed period.
Qualcomm Inc is named on 109 of the 518 simple patent families in scope, a 21.0% share, the largest single row among the 85 organisations the search returned. Two rows beginning with the same name (MediaTek Singapore Pte Ltd and MediaTek Inc) appear separately in the list and are not added together, since one family can name several filers. A larger family count reflects filing volume, not claim strength, scope or enforceability.
The data shows a long tail rather than concentration at the very top: 41 of the 85 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each, while the leading row holds 109. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name multiple filers, so there is no single concentration percentage for groups of rows on this page. The pattern is a handful of larger rows alongside many smaller ones.
Published records counted by earliest filing year rose from 137 in 2018 to 143 in 2021, a 4% increase over that span, which is the most recent window that can be treated as complete. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in because filings take time to publish, so that part of the chart understates eventual totals and should not be read as a slowdown. The chart also counts published documents rather than distinct inventions, so a rise can reflect the same invention being filed more widely rather than more new inventions.
US7535387B1, filed by Xilinx, Inc. and published 2009-05-19, describes an entropy encoder module that performs normalization of each binary input in a single clock cycle for CABAC, along with handling of outstanding bits during encoding. The abstract names these elements, but it cannot establish what the granted claims actually require or how far they reach; that depends on reading the claim set and prosecution history directly.
Go past this page: query the whole cabac context adaptive binary arithmetic coding engine design patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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 codec" OR "video coding" OR encoder))
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 90.3% 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 3,371 records and 518 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 (15 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 85 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 85 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, and the growth figure stops at 2021. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-21.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (2,226 of 3,371). 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.
This page