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 →65 patent families and 268 records cover PQ/HLG transfer function encoding for HDR video, led by Canon with 9 families.
268 published records collapse into 65 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 187 of 268 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports every record returned by a search for perceptual quantizer, PQ or HLG transfer function language combined with HDR or video terms, across title, abstract and claims. It groups the results into 65 simple patent families (one per invention, de-duplicated across countries) built from 268 published records (one per publication). No date filter was applied, so the set spans whatever years the matching documents happen to fall in.
65 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the size or shape of HDR encoding as a field, and they are a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished map.
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; 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 31 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 31 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.
Two views of the same 65 families: how the published-record count moves by filing year, and which IPC subclasses the families sit in.
Records run from 2009 (1 record) to a peak so far of 36 in 2022, with 2026 at 7. Filings from 2022 onward are still filling in as later publications arrive, so the most recent years understate their eventual count; this is a count of published documents, not of distinct inventions, since one invention can publish more than once.
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 2009-2026 (266 records); the 268 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
H04N (pictorial communication / video-TV) appears on 49 of 65 families (75.4%), G06T (image data processing) on 24 (36.9%), and G09G (display control circuits) on 14 (21.5%). A family can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add to over 100%; the full chart lists 13 subclasses in all.
Shares are the percentage of the 65 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 hdr video codec perceptual quantizer transfer function encoding patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaDescribes a computer-implemented method for applying a perceptual quantizer (PQ) electro-optical transfer function to optimise dithering and adaptive quantization when encoding video for non-perceptual-quantizer (e.g. SDR) colour spaces. The method receives a request to encode a frame with non-PQ luminance code values, derives PQ code values from them, and sets encoding parameters based on that derivation.Filed by AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC., published 2024-06-25. This is the first record returned under the database default order, not a ranking by citations, breadth or date.


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 →Four figures drawn directly from the dataset, each reported on its own terms.
The search returns 268 published records that collapse to 65 simple patent families once documents covering the same invention across countries are merged. No date limit was applied to the search string, so this spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to fall in.
Canon KK is named on 9 of the 65 simple patent families in scope (13.8%), the highest single-row count among the 31 listed filers. Because one family can name more than one filer, this figure belongs to Canon KK's row alone and cannot be added to any other row's count.
23 of the 31 listed filers are named on 2 or fewer of the 65 families each. The tenth-placed filer holds 2 families and the fifth-placed filer holds 3, figures that sit close to the bottom of the listed range rather than the top.
At the 2026-10-16 retrieval date, 187 of the 268 published records were granted and still in force. The remaining records are a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined status that is not broken out further here.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to hdr video codec perceptual quantizer transfer function encoding patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a starting point built from one search string. The next steps depend on what the reader needs to check.
A family count and an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Anyone assessing a specific design against a record in this set needs the granted claim text and prosecution history for that record.
Explore claims in EurekaThis set is built from one combination of PQ, HLG, transfer function and HDR/video terms. Related encoding approaches that use different vocabulary will not appear here even if they cover similar ground.
Refine the search in EurekaFiler rows in this dataset overlap and are not rolled up to corporate group, so any follow-up on a specific organisation should be run row by row rather than by summing related-looking names.
Look up filers in EurekaThis search returns 268 published records that collapse to 65 simple patent families once the same invention filed across multiple countries is merged into one family. There is no date limit on the search, so this count spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a fixed window. Treat these as the records matching one specific search string, not a definitive count of every patent touching HDR transfer functions, since different wording would return a different set.
Canon KK is named on 9 of the 65 simple patent families in scope, the highest count among the 31 organisations the search returned as filers. That list excludes individual inventors, who are still counted in the overall totals but not broken out by name. A larger family count on this list reflects filing volume only; it does not indicate claim breadth, validity or commercial standing.
23 of the 31 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, while the largest single row (Canon KK) holds 9. With only 65 families in the whole dataset, any concentration you calculate from this is arithmetic on a small pool rather than evidence that a handful of organisations control the area; a different search string pulling in more or fewer records would shift these counts substantially.
The abstract describes a method for applying a perceptual quantizer (PQ) electro-optical transfer function to derive PQ code values and set encoding parameters for frames originally encoded in a non-PQ colour space such as SDR, filed by AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and published 2024-06-25. What the granted claims actually require, and how far they reach, can only be read from the claim set itself, not inferred from the abstract or from any family count. It is shown here as the first record returned by the search, not as the most cited or most representative filing in the set.
The published-record filing trend runs from 1 record in 2009 to a peak so far of 36 in 2022, with 7 recorded for 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still arriving as later publications catch up with their filing dates, so the most recent years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a slowdown. This series also counts published documents rather than distinct inventions, so a rising count can reflect the same invention being filed in more countries rather than more inventions being created.
Go past this page: query the whole hdr video codec perceptual quantizer transfer function encoding 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:((( "perceptual quantizer" OR PQ OR HLG) AND "transfer function" AND (HDR OR video)))
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 75.4% 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 268 records and 65 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 30 of the 31 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 31 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 (187 of 268). 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.
This page