https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/satellite-modem-forward-error-correction-ldpc-decoder-implementation-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Satellite Modem FEC / LDPC Decoders

Satellite Modem Forward Error Correction LDPC Decoder Patents

33 patent families on satellite modem FEC LDPC decoders, with filer spread, IPC mix and a 2007-2026 filing window.

64
Published Records
33
Simple Patent Families
28%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

64 published records collapse into 33 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 18 of 64 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 33 simple patent families and 64 published records sit in scope for this search. The pool is small enough that any single filer's count can look concentrated without that meaning anyone controls the space.
  • AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE LTD is named on 6 of the 33 families (18.2%). A related-looking row, AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD, is listed separately and is not added to this figure.
  • 20 of the 22 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each. A long tail sits behind the single largest row.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This page covers records matching a search string tying together satellite, modem, forward error correction (FEC), and LDPC / decoder terms in the title, abstract and claims. It returns 64 published records, de-duplicated into 33 simple patent families. The search string carries no date limit, so the result set spans whatever filing years the matching records happen to fall in, not a chosen period.

With only 33 families in scope, this is a small pool. Treat the page as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a map of the field: a handful of documents either way would change the shares quoted here, and the search terms themselves will have missed some relevant filings and pulled in some unrelated ones.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE LTD6
  2. THE DIRECTV GRP INC4
  3. AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD2
  4. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD2
  5. ADVANTECH WIRELESS LTD1
  6. CABLE TELEVISION LAB INC1
  7. TACHYON NETWORKS INC1
  8. NEXTNET WIRELESS INC1
  9. META PLATFORMS INC1
  10. HUGHES NETWORK SYST1

Counted over all 64 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 38 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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE LTD, AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. 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 22 of the 22 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 22 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 Satellite Modem Forward Error Correction LDPC Decoder Implementation 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
Data

Filing pattern and technology mix

Counts below are drawn directly from the search results, split by publication year, receiving office and IPC subclass.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (38 of 64 published records)

2007 is the highest year shown in this window, with 12 published records; it is also the first year the chart displays, since 26 records with earlier filing dates sit outside it. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the recent end of the line understates its eventual count.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (38 of 64 published records)03691212200720092011201320152017201920212023202502022 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 (38 records); the 64 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2007 is the highest year shown, but it is also the first year in the window: earlier filings sit outside this chart, so this is not necessarily the historical peak.

IPC subclass composition (share of 33 families)

H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 60.6% of the 33 families, ahead of H04B (transmission, general) at 36.4%, H03M (coding & code conversion) at 30.3%, and H04N (pictorial communication) at 24.2%. A family can carry more than one of these classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

IPC subclass composition (share of 33 families)H04L · Digital information transmissi…2060.6%H04B · Transmission (general)1236.4%H03M · Coding & code conversion1030.3%H04N · Pictorial communication (video…824.2%G06F · Electric digital data processi…412.1%H04H · Broadcast communication39.1%H04Q · Switching & selecting26.1%G08C · Transmission of measured values13.0%Other412.1%

Shares are the percentage of the 33 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 Satellite Modem Forward Error Correction LDPC Decoder Implementation 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 Satellite Modem Forward Error Correction LDPC Decoder Implementation Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about satellite modem forward error correction ldpc decoder implementation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record

A record from the result set

First record returned, database default order
US9178653B22015-11-03

Very short size LDPC coding for physical and/or control channel signaling

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE. LIMITED

A communication device is configured to encode and/or decode low density parity check (LDPC) coded signals. Such LDPC coded signals are characterized by LDPC matrices having a particular form. An LDPC matrix may be partitioned into a left hand side matrix and the right hand side matrix. The right hand side matrix can be lower triangular such that all of the sub-matrices therein are all-zero-valued sub-matrices except for those sub-matrices located on a main diagonal of the right hand side matrix and another diagonal adjacently located to the left of the main diagonal.US9178653B2, filed by AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE. LIMITED, published 2015-11-03. This is simply the first record the database returns under its default order, not a ranking by importance or citation count.

US9178653B2, patent drawing 1US9178653B2, 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 Satellite Modem Forward Error Correction LDPC Decoder Implementation 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
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

Reading the numbers

Three figures worth sitting with before treating any single number as a conclusion.

Legal status
18 of 64
records granted and in force

28% in-force share at retrieval

18 of the 64 published records (28%) were granted and still in force at the data retrieval date of 2026-10-20. The remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and this dataset does not break that remainder down further.

Status is a snapshot, not a success rate.
Largest single filer row
6 of 33 (18.2%)
families named to one row

One row at 18.2% of 33 families

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE LTD is named on 6 of the 33 families in scope. A separately listed row, AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD, is not combined with this figure because filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and a family can name more than one filer.

Largest single row, not a combined total.
Filer spread
20 of 22
listed filers at 2 or fewer families

20 of 22 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

Of the 22 organisation filers listed for this search, 20 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows sum to 32 against a total of 33 families, but that sum cannot be read as a coverage or concentration percentage because rows overlap.

Counted per listed row, not summed.
Technology mix
60.6%
families carrying H04L

H04L on 60.6% of 33 families

H04L (digital information transmission) appears on 20 of the 33 families (60.6%), the highest single-subclass share in this set, ahead of H04B at 36.4% and H03M at 30.3%. Since one family can carry several IPC subclasses, these shares add to more than 100% and cannot be treated as a partition of the dataset.

Shares overlap; they do not sum to 100%.
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 satellite modem forward error correction ldpc decoder implementation 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 Satellite Modem Forward Error Correction LDPC Decoder Implementation 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

Where to take this

This page reports counts. Turning them into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision takes a closer read of the underlying documents.

Pull the granted claims

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim requires. Read the claim set for any record that matters to a specific design before drawing conclusions about scope.

Open Eureka →

Widen or narrow the search string

With only 33 families in scope, small changes to the search terms will shift which records and shares appear. Try adjacent terms for LDPC decoder implementation to see how stable the picture is.

Run a search 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 Satellite Modem Forward Error Correction LDPC Decoder Implementation 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

Questions practitioners ask

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Satellite Modem Forward Error Correction LDPC Decoder Implementation 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 Satellite Modem Forward Error Correction LDPC Decoder Implementation Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole satellite modem forward error correction ldpc decoder implementation 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:((satellite AND modem) AND ("forward error correction" OR FEC) AND (LDPC OR "low density parity check" OR decoder))

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 (H04L) carries 60.6% 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 64 records and 33 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 22 of the 22 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 22 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 (18 of 64). 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.