https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/lossless-integer-transform-coding-for-audio-codecs-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-21 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Audio Codecs

Lossless Integer Transform Coding for Audio Codec Patents

A 3-family dataset on lossless integer transform audio coding, led by Thomson Licensing with a long tail of one filer.

34
Published Records
3
Simple Patent Families
18%
In Force at Cut-off
EP
Leading Jurisdiction

34 published records collapse into 3 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 6 of 34 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • Just 3 simple patent families sit behind 34 published records in this search. A gap typical of inventions filed across several countries rather than many separate inventions.
  • Thomson Licensing SA is named on 2 of the 2 families (66.7%), the largest single-row share here. Microsoft Corp is the only other listed filer, named on 2 families as well.
  • 6 of the 34 records (18%) were granted and still in force at retrieval. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable and are not broken out further.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This page reports what a single search string returns for lossless integer transform coding in audio codecs: records that match "lossless audio" or "lossless compression" together with "integer transform" in the title or abstract classification field. The search carries no date limit, so the 34 published records and 3 simple patent families span whatever years the matching documents happen to fall in. Simple patent families de-duplicate one invention across the countries it was filed in; published records count every publication separately, so the two totals are never interchangeable.

With only 3 families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat the page as a starting point for a further search rather than a map of a field, a dataset this size cannot support conclusions about concentration, growth or white space, and the search terms themselves may simply have missed adjacent filings.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. THOMSON LICENSING SA2
  2. MICROSOFT CORP1

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 2 of the 2 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 2 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 Integer Transform Coding for Audio Codecs Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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
Data

Filing history and technology composition

The figures below are drawn directly from the search results: a filing-trend chart counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.

Filing trend by earliest filing year

Published records by earliest filing year ran from 9 in 2007 to a peak of 14 in 2008, tapering toward 2026. The chart's 2022-onward stretch is still filling in as later filings publish, so no decline should be read into the most recent years; this trend counts documents, not inventions, so a single invention filed in several countries adds several marks to the same year.

Filing trend by earliest filing year0481115920071420092011201320152017201920212023202502022 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 (33 records); the 34 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

G06T (image data processing & generation), G10L (speech & audio analysis/synthesis) and H04N (pictorial communication) each appear on 2 of the 2 simple patent families in scope (66.7%). Because a single family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not a partition of the dataset.

Technology composition by IPC subclassG06T · Image data processing & genera…266.7%G10L · Speech & audio analysis/synthe…266.7%H04N · Pictorial communication (video…266.7%

Shares are the percentage of the 3 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 Integer Transform Coding for Audio Codecs Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Lossless Integer Transform Coding for Audio Codecs Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about lossless integer transform coding for audio codecs patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Patent Example

A record from the result set

Example record
US8503535B22013-08-06

Rounding noise shaping for integer transform based encoding and decoding (US8503535B2)

LICENSING

The abstract describes an integer-reversible MDCT transformation split into consecutive lifting steps, each of which introduces rounding errors that would otherwise affect all frequency bins equally, including low-level ones. The invention adapts the filter coefficients of a noise shaping filter for transform coefficients at individual lifting steps according to the current time-domain signal, limiting the data-rate impact of rounding-error noise in a lossless audio codec.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 what one document in this dataset actually claims to do.

US8503535B2, patent drawing 1US8503535B2, patent drawing 2
View record

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 Integer Transform Coding for Audio Codecs Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. 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 →
Insights

What the figures show

Three observations drawn directly from the search results, each reporting a figure rather than a reading of it.

Scale
3 families / 34 records
families vs. published records

A small, record-heavy result set

The search returns 3 simple patent families but 34 published records, a gap consistent with inventions filed across multiple countries or offices rather than 34 separate inventions. The search carries no date limit, so this spread reflects whatever years the matching documents fall in.

Counted in published records and simple patent families respectively.
Filer concentration
66.7%
share held by the top single row

One row's share, read alone

Thomson Licensing SA is named on 2 of the 2 simple patent families in scope (66.7%). Microsoft Corp is the only other listed filer, also named on 2 families. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and are not summed on this page, so this figure describes that one row only.

Listed filers are organisations only; individual-named filings are excluded from the list but remain in the totals.
Legal status
18%
of 34 records granted and in force

In-force share at retrieval

6 of the 34 published records (18%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this page does not break that remainder down further.

Legal status reflects a single snapshot date and changes continuously.
Technology mix
66.7% each
share of 3 families per subclass

Three IPC subclasses at equal share

G06T, G10L and H04N each appear on 2 of the 2 simple patent families (66.7%). Because one family can carry several classifications, these three shares add up to more than 100% and do not partition the dataset.

Counted against the 3 simple patent families in scope; other subclasses in the chart are not discussed here.
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 integer transform coding for audio codecs 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 Integer Transform Coding for Audio Codecs Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Where to take this from here

A 3-family dataset supports a first look, not a final answer. These are reasonable next moves for a reader who needs more than this page provides.

Pull the granted claims directly

An abstract and a family count cannot establish what any claim set actually requires or excludes. Read the granted claims of any record that looks relevant before drawing a freedom-to-operate or infringement conclusion.

Explore in Eureka

Widen the search terms

A 3-family result from one search string is as likely to reflect the terms used as it is to reflect the size of the underlying technology. Variant phrasing and adjacent classifications may surface records this search missed.

Run a new search in Eureka

Track legal status over time

18% of the 34 records were in force at retrieval, a figure that changes as documents grant, lapse or get withdrawn. Re-check status before relying on any single record's current standing.

Monitor records 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 Integer Transform Coding for Audio Codecs Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Questions practitioners ask about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Lossless Integer Transform Coding for Audio Codecs Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-21. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Lossless Integer Transform Coding for Audio Codecs Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole lossless integer transform coding for audio codecs 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 audio" OR "lossless compression") AND "integer transform")

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 (G06T) carries 66.7% 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 34 records and 3 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 2 of the 2 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 2 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 2026-10-21.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (6 of 34). 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.