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 →A 327-family dataset on screen content coding patents shows one legal entity holding 26.9% and a long tail of 71 small filers.
900 published records collapse into 327 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. BYTEDANCE INC is named on 88 of the 327 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 387 of 900 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape is built from the search string TAC:(("screen content" OR "screen content coding") AND (compression OR encoding)), which returns 900 published records collapsing to 327 simple patent families. No date limit was applied, so the set spans every matching record the search string catches, regardless of when it was filed.
Because the search matches on text rather than a fixed classification, some records it returns will sit outside screen content coding proper and some records that use different wording for the same technique will not be caught. The IPC composition and filer tables below should be read with that in mind.
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 (BYTEDANCE INC, BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY 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 (4 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 96 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 96 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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Two views of the same 327 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Published records by earliest filing year run from 9 in 2007 to a peak of 135 in 2015, with 15 recorded for 2026. The chart's window from 2022 onward is still filling in: publication lag means recent filing years are undercounted as of the retrieval date, so no decline should be read into that stretch.
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 (865 records); the 900 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
H04N (Pictorial communication, video/TV) appears on 278 of the 327 families, 85.0% of the set. A single family can carry more than one IPC subclass, so shares across the chart add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 327 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about screen content image compression coding patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaUS20180262760A1, filed by Intel Corporation and published 2018-09-13, describes systems and methods for detecting screen content and adaptively enabling screen content coding (SCC) modes. The abstract describes basing the screen-content decision on statistics characterising the distribution of chroma and luma across a population of pixels, and on statistics characterising flat areas versus areas with sharp edges, with encoding mode selection adaptive to that determination.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, grant status or breadth. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, not from this abstract.


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.
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 →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 →Three figures from the dataset, reported without ranking the field or inferring strategy behind them.
BYTEDANCE INC is named on 88 of the 327 simple patent families in scope, 26.9% of the set. Two further rows in the listed filers begin with the same name (BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY LTD) and are counted separately; they are not summed with this row here.
Of the 96 organisations returned in the filer list, 71 hold two or fewer simple patent families each. The list excludes individual filers, who remain inside the 327-family total but are not broken out by name.
H04N (Pictorial communication, video/TV) is attached to 278 of the 327 families in scope, 85.0%. Because a family can carry more than one IPC subclass, this share is not exclusive of the other subclasses the dataset also returns.
387 of the 900 published records, 43%, were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remainder cover pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable statuses, which are not broken out individually here.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to screen content image compression coding patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures on this page describe what the search string returned. Turning them into a filing or freedom-to-operate view needs the granted claims themselves.
Family counts and abstracts describe what a record is about, not what its granted claims cover. Pulling the claim set is the only way to assess scope for a specific design.
Open Patsnap EurekaThe 96 listed filers include a long tail of small holders alongside the largest single row. Watching new entrants into that tail over time needs a live, re-run search rather than a static snapshot.
Open Patsnap EurekaA search for screen content coding and compression/encoding returns 900 published records, which collapse to 327 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is de-duplicated. No date limit was applied to this search, so the figure spans every matching record the search string catches. These numbers describe what this particular search string returns, not a definitive count of every patent ever filed on the topic, since different wording in a filing can cause the search to miss it.
BYTEDANCE INC is named on 88 of the 327 simple patent families in scope, 26.9%, the largest single filer row in the list of 96 organisations returned. A related-looking row, BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY LTD, is listed separately and is not added to that figure because one family can name more than one filer and summing rows would over-count. Beyond the largest rows, 71 of the 96 listed filers hold two or fewer families each, so the list has a long tail of smaller holders alongside the single largest row.
H04N, the IPC subclass for pictorial communication including video and TV, is attached to 278 of the 327 families in scope, 85.0% of the set. Because a family can carry more than one IPC subclass, that share is not exclusive of the smaller subclasses the search also returns. The dataset covers 25 subclasses in total, though only the largest are substantial enough to characterise with confidence here.
387 of the 900 published records in this dataset, 43%, were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remaining records cover a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable statuses that are not broken out separately in this dataset. In-force status reflects legal standing at a point in time rather than any measure of a patent's quality or commercial value, and it changes as documents are granted, lapse or are abandoned.
The dataset returns 29 receiving offices in total, with the largest volumes of published records filed at the United States (220), WIPO under the PCT (189), the European Patent Office (107), China (91), India (43) and the United Kingdom (37). These are record counts, meaning one invention can appear once for each office it was filed in, so they do not divide the 900 total into exclusive buckets. The spread across a PCT route and several national offices is consistent with filers seeking protection in multiple jurisdictions for the same underlying invention.
Go past this page: query the whole screen content image compression coding patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("screen content" OR "screen content coding") AND (compression OR encoding))
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 (H04N) carries 85.0% 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 900 records and 327 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 (4 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 96 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 96 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 (387 of 900). 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.
This page