https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/lossless-data-compression-algorithm-for-file-archiving-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Software & Cloud

Lossless Data Compression Algorithm for File Archiving Patents

A 11-family dataset on lossless compression for file archiving, with filer spread, IPC mix and filing history through 2026.

37
Published Records
11
Simple Patent Families
8%
In Force at Cut-off
WO
Leading Jurisdiction

37 published records collapse into 11 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 3 of 37 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 11 simple patent families and 37 published records match this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • No single filer leads three entities, Sensormatic Electronics Corp, Shenzhen Univ and Matrixview Ltd, are tied at 2 families each, the highest count any row holds.
  • Pictorial communication classes appear most H04N is attached to 6 of the 11 families (54.5%), ahead of G06F, G06T and H03M at 4 each (36.4%).
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This search pulls records matching "lossless compression" or "data compression algorithm" combined with archiving terms and encoding or compression-ratio language in the title, abstract or claims. It returns 11 simple patent families across 37 published records, with no start or end date applied to the query, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching text happens to fall in.

11 families is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of a field, a handful of documents cannot establish who controls a space or where it is headed, and absence of a term here is as likely to reflect the search string as it is to reflect the state of filing.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS CORP2
  2. SHENZHEN UNIV2
  3. MATRIXVIEW LTD2
  4. EUCLID DISCOVERIES LLC1
  5. BEIJING INFORMATION SCI & TECH UNIV1
  6. LCJ ENTERPRISES1
  7. VISIOPRIME1

Counted over all 37 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 14 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 (2 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 7 of the 7 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 7 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 Data Compression Algorithm for File Archiving Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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 activity and technology mix

Three views of the same 11 families: how filings arrived over time, how they cluster by IPC subclass, and where they were filed.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (14 of 37 published records)

Records run from a 2007 earliest-filing year through to 2026, with a peak of 7 records in 2008. The years from 2022 onward are shaded because publication lag means they are still filling in; no growth or decline should be read from recent years, and the series counts published records, not de-duplicated inventions.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (14 of 37 published records)0246822007720092011201320152017201920212023202502022 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 (14 records); the 37 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition (share of 11 families)

H04N (pictorial communication) is attached to 6 of the 11 families (54.5%); G06F, G06T and H03M each appear on 4 (36.4%); G08B appears on 2 (18.2%). A family can carry more than one class, so these shares add up to over 100%, and 10 subclasses appear across the full result set.

IPC subclass composition (share of 11 families)H04N · Pictorial communication (video…654.5%G06F · Electric digital data processi…436.4%G06T · Image data processing & genera…436.4%H03M · Coding & code conversion436.4%G08B · Signalling & alarm systems218.2%A61B · Diagnosis & surgery19.1%G06K · Data recognition & presentation19.1%G06V · Image/video recognition19.1%Other218.2%

Shares are the percentage of the 11 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 Data Compression Algorithm for File Archiving Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Lossless Data Compression Algorithm for File Archiving Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about lossless data compression algorithm for file archiving patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record Example

A record from the result set

From the result set
US20080037880A12008-02-14

Scalable, progressive image compression and archiving system over a low bit rate internet protocol network

LCJ ENTERPRISES LLC

An on-demand, interactive, scalable, image data compressor, data archiving, transmission and presentation system comprising a server, a compression engine, memory and user interface capable of communicating with the server is described. The compression engine provides progressive transmission of a compressed image and provides both a tree based compression method and a context based, code block encoding compression method, either of which are selectable by the user on demand. The compression engine can switch automatically from a lossy compression to a lossless compression to achieve a desired quality of decompressed images.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. Its abstract and family count describe what it discusses, not what its granted claims require, that has to be read from the claim set itself.

US20080037880A1, patent drawing 1US20080037880A1, patent drawing 2
View record US20080037880A1

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 Data Compression Algorithm for File Archiving Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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

What the dataset shows

Four figures worth noting before searching further, each reported as counted, no ranking or market read implied.

Scope
11 / 37
families / published records

Two different counts for the same topic

The search returns 11 simple patent families, de-duplicated across countries, and 37 published records, one per publication. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever filing years the matching text falls in.

Use family counts for invention-level comparisons, record counts for publication-level ones.
Filers
2 of 11
families, tied at top

Three filers tied at the top count

Sensormatic Electronics Corp, Shenzhen Univ and Matrixview Ltd each are named on 2 of the 11 families (18.2% for the single-row figure shown on the page). 7 filers are listed in all, and each one holds 2 or fewer families, so no row stands apart from the rest.

Filer rows overlap where a family names more than one filer, so rows cannot be summed into a combined share.
Technology
54.5%
of 11 families carry H04N

Pictorial communication appears on over half the families

H04N (pictorial communication, video/TV) is attached to 6 of 11 families. G06F, G06T and H03M each appear on 4 (36.4%), and a family can carry several classes at once, so these shares add to more than 100%.

10 subclasses appear across the full result set; only the largest are shown here.
Status
3 of 37
records in force

A small share were granted and in force at retrieval

3 of the 37 published records (8%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remainder cover a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or undetermined statuses that are not broken out separately here.

Legal status changes continuously and is not a measure of the records' 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 data compression algorithm for file archiving 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 Lossless Data Compression Algorithm for File Archiving Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Where to take this from here

This page surfaces a small, narrowly-matched set of records. A few directions help turn it into something closer to a working map.

Pull the granted claims directly

Family counts and abstracts describe subject matter, not claim scope. Before drawing any freedom-to-operate conclusion, read the granted claims of any record that looks relevant.

Open Eureka to pull full claim sets

Broaden or vary the search string

With 11 families in scope, a different phrasing of the compression, archiving or encoding terms could surface records this exact string misses.

Run a variant search in Eureka

Check filer rows individually

The 7 listed filers each hold 2 or fewer families. Reviewing each row's actual filings, rather than treating the list as a ranking, gives a clearer sense of who is active.

Explore filer portfolios 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 Lossless Data Compression Algorithm for File Archiving Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. 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 Lossless Data Compression Algorithm for File Archiving Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Lossless Data Compression Algorithm for File Archiving Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole lossless data compression algorithm for file archiving 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:(("lossless compression" OR "data compression algorithm") AND (archiving OR "file archive") AND (encoding OR "compression ratio"))

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.

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 37 records and 11 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 (2 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 7 of the 7 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 7 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 2026-10-27.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (3 of 37). 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.