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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/geometry-based-point-cloud-compression-octree-coding-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-16 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Point Cloud CompressionGeometry-Based Point Cloud Compression Octree Coding Patents
56 patent families and 186 records cover octree-based point cloud compression, with two filers tied at the top count.
186
Published Records
56
Simple Patent Families
47%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
186 published records collapse into 56 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 87 of 186 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 56 simple patent families and 186 published records make up this search on octree-based geometry coding for point cloud compression.
- Two filers tie at the top BYTEDANCE INC and DOUYIN VISION CO LTD each carry 23 of the 56 simple patent families.
- H04N and G06T cover most of the pool 64.3% and 57.1% of the 56 simple patent families carry these two IPC subclasses respectively.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This search combines point cloud compression or point cloud coding with octree and geometry across patent titles, abstracts and claims. It returns 186 published records, which de-duplicate down to 56 simple patent families once filings for the same invention across multiple countries are merged. The search string carries no date limit, so the set spans whatever years the matching records were filed in; the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window of that span, not the full scope.
56 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, who filed, which IPC subclasses recur, where applications were filed, and are a starting point for a closer search rather than a map of the wider field.
Records vs. families in scope
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 (BYTEDANCE INC, BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY LTD). 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. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified; 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 11 of the 11 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 11 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 Geometry Based Point Cloud Compression Octree Coding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Numbers
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 56 families: when matching records were filed, and which IPC subclasses recur across them.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)
Records run from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 61 in 2021, then fall off from 2022 onward, that tail reflects publication lag (up to 30 months for PCT national-phase entries), not fewer filings. Read nothing into the recent-year drop; those years are still filling in.
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 composition (share of 56 simple patent families)
H04N (Pictorial communication) appears on 64.3% of the 56 families and G06T (Image data processing & generation) on 57.1%. Families can carry both subclasses and others, so the shares shown add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 56 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 Geometry Based Point Cloud Compression Octree Coding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Geometry Based Point Cloud Compression Octree Coding Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about geometry based point cloud compression octree coding patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaExample Record
One record from the result set
As Returned By The Search
US11593969B2, Method and apparatus for geometry merge mode for point cloud coding
TENCENT AMERICA LLC
The abstract describes a geometry merge mode for point cloud coding performed by a processor. The method obtains a candidate node of an octree partition for a currently-coded node, retrieves the occupancy code of that previously-coded candidate node, builds a candidate list from it, and derives the occupancy code of the current node from that list to perform the compression.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 how representative it is of the other 55 families.
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 Geometry Based Point Cloud Compression Octree Coding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. 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
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
What the numbers show
Four figures drawn directly from this search, each counted in the unit the evidence attaches to it.
Scope
56 families / 186 records
simple patent families vs. published records
Two different counts of the same search
The search returns 186 published records, which collapse to 56 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is merged. Neither number is a date-bounded figure, the search string carries no date limit.
Use the family count for invention-level counting, the record count for publication-level counting.
Top filers
23 families each
tied at the top of the listed filers
Two filers share the top count
BYTEDANCE INC and DOUYIN VISION CO LTD are each named on 23 of the 56 simple patent families, tied for the top count among the 11 listed filer rows. Rows are not rolled up to corporate group, and one family can name several filers, so these rows cannot be summed into a combined share.
Fifth place among the listed rows sits at 2 families; tenth place at 1.
Legal status
87 of 186 records
granted and in force at retrieval
Just under half of the records are in force
At the retrieval date, 87 of the 186 published records (47%) were granted and still in force. The remainder sit in other statuses that are not broken out here, so this figure is a snapshot, not a success rate.
In-force status changes continuously and does not indicate claim strength.
IPC composition
64.3% / 57.1%
share of 56 families carrying H04N / G06T
Two IPC subclasses recur across most families
H04N (pictorial communication) appears on 64.3% of the 56 simple patent families and G06T (image data processing & generation) on 57.1%. Families can carry both subclasses at once, so the two shares are not mutually exclusive and do not sum to a total.
Other IPC subclasses returned by the search sit well below these two shares.
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 geometry based point cloud compression octree coding patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Geometry Based Point Cloud Compression Octree Coding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps
Where to take this next
This page reports counts from one search string. Narrowing or verifying any of the following requires pulling the underlying documents.
Read the granted claims directly
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a claim covers. Pull the granted claim set for any record before drawing a freedom-to-operate conclusion.
Open Eureka →Check the listed filer rows individually
The 11 listed filer rows are organisations only and do not sum to the family total, since individual inventors and overlaps are excluded from that arithmetic. Review each row's actual filings before treating any two as related.
Explore filer records →Re-run with tighter date bounds
This search carries no date limit. Bounding it by filing year will change both the record and family counts shown here.
Refine the search →Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Geometry Based Point Cloud Compression Octree Coding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this dataset
This search returns 186 published records, which de-duplicate to 56 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is merged. The search string carries no date limit, so this set is not bounded to any particular span of years. These figures describe only what this specific search string returns, not every patent that might relate to octree-based point cloud compression under different terms.
Among the 11 listed filer rows, BYTEDANCE INC and DOUYIN VISION CO LTD are tied at 23 simple patent families each, the top count in this set. A further row, BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY LTD, also starts with the same name as the first but is a separate row and is not added to it. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and one family can name several filers, so none of these counts should be summed into a combined total.
Its abstract describes a geometry merge mode for point cloud coding that builds a candidate list from a previously-coded octree node's occupancy code and uses it to derive the occupancy code of the node currently being coded. This is the first record the database returned under its default order, not a ranking by citations or scope. What its granted claims actually require, and how broadly they reach, can only be established by reading the claim set itself, not from this abstract or from any family count.
47% of the 186 published records (87 of them) were granted and in force at the retrieval date of 2026-10-16. The remaining records sit across pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined statuses that are not separately broken out in this dataset. In-force status is a snapshot at one point in time and changes continuously, so it should not be read as a measure of claim quality or commercial value.
Two IPC subclasses recur across most of the 56 simple patent families: H04N (pictorial communication, i.e. video/TV) on 64.3% of families and G06T (image data processing and generation) on 57.1%. Because a single family can carry both classifications, these shares overlap and add up to more than 100%. Other IPC subclasses appear in the search results at much lower shares and are not detailed further here, since this pool is too small to distinguish a genuine minor branch from search-string noise.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Geometry Based Point Cloud Compression Octree Coding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Geometry Based Point Cloud Compression Octree Coding Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole geometry based point cloud compression octree coding patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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:((( "point cloud compression" OR "point cloud coding") AND octree AND geometry))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 64.3% 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 186 records and 56 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. 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 11 of the 11 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 11 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 2026-10-16.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (87 of 186). 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.