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/lossless-audio-codec-linear-predictive-coding-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Audio CodecsLossless Audio Codec Linear Predictive Coding Patents
A 14-family dataset on lossless audio codec linear prediction: DTS Inc leads filings, with records across 22 receiving offices.
92
Published Records
14
Simple Patent Families
32%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
92 published records collapse into 14 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 29 of 92 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 14 simple patent families and 92 published records make up this search on lossless audio codec linear prediction, a narrow pool by any measure.
- DTS Inc holds the largest single share named on 4 of the 14 families (28.6%), with 8 of the 9 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families each.
- 29 of 92 records (32%) are in force at the retrieval date, a legal-status snapshot rather than a measure of commercial strength.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page reports a search for records combining lossless audio terms, FLAC, ALAC, with predictive or linear-prediction coding language inside a codec context. It returns 14 simple patent families and 92 published records, with no date limit applied to the search string itself. The listed filers are organisations only; filings held by named individuals sit inside the totals but are not broken out in the table.
Fourteen families is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a map of the lossless-codec field: absence of a name or a classification here is far more likely to reflect the search terms than an absence of filing activity.
Families and records in scope
Counted over all 92 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 66 records from 2007 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. 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 (1 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 9 of the 9 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 9 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 Lossless Audio Codec Linear Predictive Coding 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
The Numbers
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 14-family dataset: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (66 of 92 published records)
The chart counts published records by the year they were first filed, from 2007 through 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are shaded: they are still publishing and will understate the final count for those years. The peak so far is 2009, at 36 records; this series cannot support a statement about growth or 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 (66 records); the 92 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass composition (simple patent families)
G10L (speech and audio analysis/synthesis) appears on 9 of the 14 families, 64.3%, the largest share in this set. G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 4 families, 28.6%. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to more than 100%, and the chart shows further subclasses below these two.
Shares are the percentage of the 14 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 Lossless Audio Codec Linear Predictive Coding 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 Lossless Audio Codec Linear Predictive Coding Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about lossless audio codec linear predictive coding patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRecord in Focus
One record from the result set
Example record
Audio interaction method, apparatus, and system
TENCENT TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) COMPANY LIMITED
The abstract describes grouping users into attribute-based groups, recording an audio file for a user, extracting decibel information from that recording, and comparing it against decibel information of a user in a different group, with the comparison result presented to users. It is drawn from US20150317124A1, filed by Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Company Limited.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate one way the search string matches, not as representative of the field.
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 Lossless Audio Codec Linear Predictive Coding 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
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 dataset
Four figures from the search, reported as counted, with what each one does and does not establish.
Scope
14 families / 92 records
simple patent families vs published records
Two different counts for the same search
The search returns 14 simple patent families, each de-duplicated across countries, and 92 published records, one per publication. No date limit was applied to the search string, so this is not confined to a particular filing span.
Family and record counts are not interchangeable.
Largest filer
4 of 14 families
DTS Inc share
One row at 28.6% of families in scope
DTS Inc is named on 4 of the 14 simple patent families, 28.6%. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and one family can name more than one filer, so this figure describes only this single row.
Filer rows overlap and cannot be summed into a combined share.
Spread
8 of 9 filers
filers holding 2 or fewer families
Most listed filers hold a small handful each
Of the 9 listed filers, 8 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed filers are organisations only; filings held by named individuals remain in the totals but are not shown as rows.
This is a count of listed rows, not a share of the dataset.
Legal status
29 of 92 records
granted and in force at retrieval
32% in force at the retrieval date
29 of the 92 published records were granted and still in force when the data was retrieved on 2026-10-20. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not available here.
In-force status is a snapshot, not a measure of quality or value.
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 lossless audio codec linear predictive 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 Lossless Audio Codec Linear Predictive Coding 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
Where to Go From Here
Taking this further
This page gives a starting count. Narrowing or widening the search terms, or pulling granted claims directly, is the next step for any of the questions below.
Check claim scope directly
Family counts and abstracts cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Pull the claim set for any record that matters before drawing a freedom-to-operate conclusion.
Open Patsnap EurekaRe-run with adjusted terms
A 14-family pool this small is sensitive to the exact search string. Broadening or narrowing the lossless-audio or predictive-coding terms may surface records this pass does not.
Refine the search in Patsnap EurekaWatch the filing window
Records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing. Revisit the trend chart periodically rather than reading a conclusion into the most recent years now.
Track updates in Patsnap EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Lossless Audio Codec Linear Predictive Coding 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
This search returns 14 simple patent families and 92 published records matching terms for lossless audio formats (FLAC, ALAC) combined with predictive or linear-prediction coding language inside a codec context. The family count de-duplicates the same invention filed in multiple countries, while the record count counts each publication separately, so the two numbers measure different things. No date limit was applied to the underlying search string, so this reflects whatever filing history the terms matched, not a fixed year range. Because the pool is only 14 families, it should be read as a starting point for further search rather than a complete map of this technology area.
DTS Inc is named on 4 of the 14 simple patent families in scope, 28.6%, the largest single share among the listed filers. Eight of the nine listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is the honest way to describe how spread out the filing activity is in this set. These filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, so related entities with similar names appear as separate rows and are never added together. The filer list also excludes filings held by named individuals, which remain inside the totals but are not shown as rows.
The chart counts published records by earliest filing year, running from 2007 through 2026, with a peak so far of 36 records in 2009. Records filed from 2022 onward are shaded because they are still publishing: roughly 18 months is typical for most filing routes and up to 30 months where an application enters national phase via PCT, so recent years understate their eventual totals. The series counts documents, not inventions, so a change in the count can reflect the same invention being filed more or fewer times rather than a change in the volume of underlying work. With only 14 families behind the whole series, no growth or decline conclusion is supported here.
G10L, which covers speech and audio analysis and synthesis, appears on 9 of the 14 simple patent families in scope, 64.3%, the largest share among the classifications shown. G06F, electric digital data processing, appears on 4 families, 28.6%. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC classification, these two shares add up to more than 100%, and the chart on the page shows further subclasses beyond these two at lower shares. These two are the only classifications with enough weight in this dataset to characterise; the rest sit at levels where search-string noise cannot be ruled out.
29 of the 92 published records, 32%, were granted and still in force at the retrieval date of 2026-10-20. The remaining records fall into pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable categories, but that breakdown is not available on this page. In-force status is a legal snapshot at a single point in time, not a measure of a patent's quality, scope or commercial value, and it will change as individual records move through their lifecycle. Anyone relying on a specific record's status for a decision should verify it directly through the record rather than from this aggregate figure.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Lossless Audio Codec Linear Predictive Coding 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 Lossless Audio Codec Linear Predictive Coding Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole lossless audio codec linear predictive 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:(("lossless audio" OR FLAC OR ALAC) AND (predict* OR "linear prediction") AND codec)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 (G10L) 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 92 records and 14 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 (1 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 9 of the 9 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 9 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 (29 of 92). 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.