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-image-compression-predictive-pixel-coding-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Updated 2026Lossless Image Compression Predictive Pixel Coding Patents
69 patent families and 153 records on predictive pixel coding for lossless image compression, with filer and filing data through 2026.
153
Published Records
69
Simple Patent Families
39%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
153 published records collapse into 69 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 60 of 153 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 69 simple patent families and 153 published records make up this search, with the top filer named on 5 families (7.2%).
- 87 of 89 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, the honest measure of how spread out this filer list is.
- 60 of 153 records (39%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This dataset gathers records matching lossless image compression or PNG together with predict* and pixel in the title, abstract or claims. It returns 69 simple patent families and 153 published records, with no date limit applied to the search string itself. The filing-trend chart shown below is a recent window only, not the full scope of the search.
At 69 families, this is a small pool. It is a starting point for a search, not a map of a field: absence of a name or a branch here is far more likely to reflect what the search string caught than any underlying reality.
Records vs. families in scope
Counted over all 153 published records, including filings from before 2008; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 122 records from 2008 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 (11 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 89 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 89 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 Image Compression Predictive Pixel 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
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 split
Counts below are drawn directly from the search; records and families are tracked separately and are never summed into each other.
Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (122 of 153 published records)
Records run from 13 in 2008 to a peak of 14 in 2017 and 5 in 2026. Years from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart because publication lag means they are still filling in, and the series counts published records rather than de-duplicated inventions, so it cannot be read as a trend in innovation.
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 2008-2026 (122 records); the 153 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
IPC subclass coverage (share of 69 simple patent families)
H04N (Pictorial communication) appears on 46.4% of families, the highest share of any subclass here, followed by G06T (Image data processing & generation) at 33.3% and G06N (AI-based computing) at 26.1%. Because a family can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should be read one class at a time.
Shares are the percentage of the 69 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 Image Compression Predictive Pixel 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 Image Compression Predictive Pixel Coding Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about lossless image compression predictive pixel coding patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patent
A record from the result set
Representative Filing
Apparatus and method for lossless/near-lossless image compression
ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The abstract describes calculating a predicted value for a pixel from adjacent pixels, taking the difference between that prediction and the actual pixel value as an error, modulating and encoding that error, and controlling a tolerance on a slice-by-slice basis so the number of encoded bits matches a target. The tolerance can be increased or decreased gradually to avoid a sudden change.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most-cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. Reading what its granted claims actually require means pulling the claim set directly; an abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope.
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 Image Compression Predictive Pixel 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 →Patterns In The Data
What the filer and office data shows
Three figures from this search, reported as counted, with the limits of what each one establishes.
Largest single filer
5 of 69 (7.2%)
families named on top row
VELLORE INSITUTE OF TECH, 5 families
VELLORE INSITUTE OF TECH is named on 5 of the 69 simple patent families in scope, a 7.2% share. This is the single highest row in the filer list; filer rows overlap because one family can name several filers, so this share belongs to this row alone and cannot be added to any other row.
Filer list, families basis
Spread across the filer list
87 of 89 filers
hold 2 or fewer families
A long tail of single- and double-filing entries
87 of the 89 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The list covers organisations only; filings held by named individuals sit inside the 69-family total but are not shown as separate rows.
Listed filers, organisations only
Legal status at retrieval
60 of 153 (39%)
records granted and in force
39% of records were in force at the cut-off
60 of the 153 published records were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-20 retrieval date. The remaining records are a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable statuses that are not broken out individually here, so none of those sub-counts can be quoted.
Record-level legal status
Where applications were filed
US 51 · India 27 · EPO 20
largest receiving offices, by records
United States carries the most records among the offices listed
Among 12 receiving offices returned by this search, the United States accounts for 51 published records, India 27, and the European Patent Office 20, with China, WIPO (PCT) and South Korea also listed. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, and the 6 largest listed here do not sum to the 153-record total.
Receiving-office breakdown, records basis
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 image compression predictive pixel 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 Image Compression Predictive Pixel 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
Next Steps
Working further with this dataset
The figures above describe what this search returned. Taking any of them further means reading the underlying documents directly.
Pull the granted claims
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim requires or how far it reaches. Reading the claim set is the only way to answer a freedom-to-operate question.
Open Eureka →Check individual filer rows
Filer rows in this list are not rolled up to corporate group and they overlap where a family names more than one party. Any further analysis of a specific name should start from that row alone.
Explore in Eureka →Track newer filings as they publish
Records filed from 2022 onward are still arriving because of publication lag. Re-running this search later will fill in those years rather than reveal a drop in filing.
Set up monitoring 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 Image Compression Predictive Pixel 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 on this dataset
This search returns 69 simple patent families and 153 published records matching lossless image compression or PNG together with predict* and pixel. A family is one invention de-duplicated across the countries it was filed in, while a record counts each publication separately, so the two numbers are not interchangeable. No date limit was applied to the search string, so this set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in, not a fixed window chosen in advance.
VELLORE INSITUTE OF TECH is named on 5 of the 69 simple patent families in scope, a 7.2% share, the highest of any single row in the filer list returned by this search. That figure describes volume only, counted as a share of the family total, and says nothing about claim scope or enforceability. The filer list beyond that point has 87 of 89 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families each, so most of the list is a long tail rather than a concentration at the top.
The filing-trend chart counts published records by earliest filing year, running from 13 records in 2008 to a peak of 14 in 2017 and 5 in 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart because of publication lag: it typically takes around 18 months for a filing to publish, longer where a PCT application enters national phase, so the most recent years are still filling in. Because the series counts published records rather than distinct inventions, a rise or fall in the line can reflect broader filing of the same inventions across countries rather than a change in the number of inventions.
60 of the 153 published records in this dataset, or 39%, were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-20 retrieval date. The remaining records fall into a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable statuses that are not broken out separately in this dataset. In-force status reflects legal standing at a single point in time and changes continuously, so it should not be read as a measure of quality or commercial success.
Among the IPC subclasses large enough to report here, H04N (Pictorial communication, including video and TV) appears on 46.4% of the 69 simple patent families, the highest share in this dataset. G06T (Image data processing and generation) follows at 33.3% and G06N (AI-based computing) at 26.1%, with G06V (image/video recognition), A61B (diagnosis and surgery) and G06K (data recognition and presentation) also represented. A family can carry more than one IPC class at once, so these shares add up to more than 100% and should each be read against the 69-family total individually, not summed together.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Lossless Image Compression Predictive Pixel 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 Image Compression Predictive Pixel Coding Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole lossless image compression predictive pixel 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 image compression" OR PNG) AND predict* AND pixel)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. No subclass carries much of this set: the most common one is on 46.4% of the patent families and the set spans 27 subclasses in all. That can mean the technology genuinely sits across several areas, or that the search string is also matching adjacent work that happens to use the same words. This page cannot separate the two, and the result set is not screened by hand.
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 153 records and 69 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 (11 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 89 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 89 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 (60 of 153). 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.