https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/variable-length-code-table-construction-for-data-compression-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Data Compression

Variable Length Code Table Construction Patents for Data Compression

Coverage of 59 patent families and 176 records on variable length code table construction for data compression, led by one 11.9% filer.

176
Published Records
59
Simple Patent Families
9%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

176 published records collapse into 59 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 16 of 176 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 59 simple patent families and 176 published records make up this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CO LTD is named on 7 of the 59 families (11.9%), the largest single filer row in the listed set.
  • 24 of 32 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, the rest of the list beyond the largest rows.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This page reports a search for records matching ("variable length code" OR "variable-length coding") AND ("code table" OR "lookup table construction") AND ("data compression" OR compression) in title, abstract and claims. It returns 176 published records that de-duplicate to 59 simple patent families. No start or end date was applied, so the set spans whatever years the matching text happens to appear in, not a chosen window.

59 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the size or shape of a broader field, and the page is best used as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a complete map.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CO LTD7
  2. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD5
  3. KK TOSHIBA5
  4. FUJITSU LTD4
  5. CISCO TECHNOLOGY INC4
  6. PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORP3
  7. PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORP OF AMERICA3
  8. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION3
  9. PANTECH & CURITEL COMM INC2
  10. RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORP2

Counted over all 176 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 50 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. 5 rows in this table share the name ELECTRONICS (ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM RES INST, DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CO LTD, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD, and others). 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; 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 32 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 32 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 Variable Length Code Table Construction for Data Compression 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
Data

Filing trend and classification mix

Two views of the same 59 families: when the matching records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (50 of 176 published records)

The trend counts published records by earliest filing year, from 2007 (1 record) to a peak of 12 in 2011. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the recent end of the line understates what will eventually be on file; this is a publication-lag effect, not a change in filing activity.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records) (50 of 176 published records)036912120072009122011201320152017201920212023202502022 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 (50 records); the 176 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition

Shares are calculated against all 59 families, and a family can carry more than one subclass, so the figures add to more than 100%. H04N (Pictorial communication, video/TV) appears on 78.0% of families, H03M (Coding & code conversion) on 50.8%, and G06T (Image data processing & generation) on 32.2%.

IPC subclass compositionH04N · Pictorial communication (video…4678.0%H03M · Coding & code conversion3050.8%G06T · Image data processing & genera…1932.2%G06K · Data recognition & presentation813.6%G06F · Electric digital data processi…711.9%H04B · Transmission (general)35.1%G09G · Display control circuits23.4%G11B · Information storage (magnetic/…23.4%Other23.4%

Shares are the percentage of the 59 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 Variable Length Code Table Construction for Data Compression 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 Variable Length Code Table Construction for Data Compression Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about variable length code table construction for data compression patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Patent Example

A record from the result set

From the result set
US5999111A1999-12-07

Variable length encoding/decoding apparatus using re-association of symbol-codeword for variable length code table

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

US5999111A describes a variable length encoding/decoding apparatus that re-associates symbols and codewords within a variable length code table. It uses a re-associator that stores symbol-address, address-codeword and address-counter-value assignment information, and alters that assignment as counter values vary with symbol occurrence, together with a controller that initializes counter values based on symbol-occurrence probabilities.This is simply the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. What its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; neither this abstract nor any family count can establish that.

US5999111A, patent drawing 1US5999111A, 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 Variable Length Code Table Construction for Data Compression 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 →
Patterns in the data

What the figures show

Three figures worth sitting with before reading further into the dataset.

Largest single filer row
11.9%
of 59 families

DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CO LTD named on 7 of 59 families

DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CO LTD is named on 7 of the 59 simple patent families in scope, the largest count among the 32 listed filer rows. Five other listed rows start with different electronics company names and are not summed with this one or with each other; one family can name several filers, so adding rows would over-count.

Filer table, 32 listed rows
Spread across the list
24 of 32
listed filers

Most listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

24 of the 32 listed filer rows hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This is a count of how the listed rows are spread out, not a concentration measure, and the list itself holds only organisations, filings held by named individuals sit inside the 59-family total but not in this row count.

Filer table, 32 listed rows
Classification mix
78.0%
of 59 families

H04N carries the largest IPC share in this set

H04N (Pictorial communication, video/TV) appears on 46 of the 59 families (78.0%), H03M (Coding & code conversion) on 30 (50.8%), and G06T (Image data processing & generation) on 19 (32.2%). Families can carry more than one of these subclasses, so the three shares add to more than 100%.

IPC composition, 59 families
Legal status
9%
of 176 records

16 of 176 records were granted and in force at retrieval

16 of the 176 published records (9%) were granted and still in force on the retrieval date of 2026-10-27. The remaining 91% covers pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and not-determinable statuses together, which are not broken out separately here.

Legal status at retrieval, 176 records
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 variable length code table construction for data compression 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 Variable Length Code Table Construction for Data Compression 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 next

This page is a starting point built from one search string. Eureka can help narrow or widen that search and pull the underlying claim sets.

Check claim scope directly

Family counts and abstracts cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Pull the claim sets for any family that matters to a decision before relying on this page for that.

Open Eureka

Re-run with adjusted terms

A 59-family pool is sensitive to the exact search string used. Broadening or narrowing the query in Eureka can surface families this particular string missed.

Refine the search

Track the listed filers

The filer table lists 32 organisations by volume. Setting up monitoring on specific rows can surface new publications as they appear.

Set up monitoring
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Variable Length Code Table Construction for Data Compression 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

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Variable Length Code Table Construction for Data Compression 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 Variable Length Code Table Construction for Data Compression Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole variable length code table construction for data compression 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:(("variable length code" OR "variable-length coding") AND ("code table" OR "lookup table construction") AND ("data compression" OR compression))

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 78.0% 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 176 records and 59 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 30 of the 32 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 32 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 (16 of 176). 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.