https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/video-codec-chroma-format-subsampling-conversion-encoding-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-16 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Video Codecs

Video codec chroma format subsampling conversion encoding patents

205 patent families and 813 published records on chroma subsampling conversion in video codecs, led by a single filer on 15.6% of families.

813
Published Records
205
Simple Patent Families
16%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
50%
In Force at Cut-off

813 published records collapse into 205 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. BYTEDANCE INC is named on 32 of the 205 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 In force = 405 of 813 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 205 simple patent families and 813 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search.
  • BYTEDANCE INC is named on 32 of the 205 families (15.6%), the highest share of any listed filer.
  • 61 of the 84 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, pointing to a long tail beneath the largest rows.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape is built from the search string TAC:((chroma AND subsampl* AND (conversion OR encoding))), which returns 205 simple patent families spanning 813 published records. No date limit was applied, so the set reflects every matching record the search string returns regardless of filing year. Records are drawn from 33 receiving offices, with the largest volumes filed at the United States, the European Patent Office, and under the WIPO PCT route.

Of the 813 records, 405 (50%) were granted and remained in force at the retrieval date. That figure describes legal status at a single point in time across pending, withdrawn, refused and lapsed documents combined; it is not a measure of how strong or how commercially active any individual filing is.

Families vs. published records
  1. BYTEDANCE INC32
  2. DOUYIN VISION CO LTD31
  3. TENCENT AMERICA LLC12
  4. CANON KK11
  5. QUALCOMM INC10
  6. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)9
  7. INTEL CORP8
  8. MEDIATEK INC6
  9. SONY GROUP CORP6
  10. HUAWEI TECH CO LTD6

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 (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 30 of the 84 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 84 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 Video Codec Chroma Format Subsampling Conversion Encoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

The two views below cover the same 205 families from different angles: one tracks publication activity over time, the other breaks the set down by IPC subclass.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)

Published records by earliest filing year run from 4 in 2008 to a peak of 124 in 2020, with the most recent filing year reaching 16. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the chart's final stretch understates eventual volume and should not be read as a decline.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)0387511315042008201020122014201620181242020202220241620262022 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 2008-2026 (774 records); the 813 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

Technology composition (IPC subclass)

H04N (Pictorial communication: video/TV) appears on 189 of the 205 families (92.2%), and G06T (Image data processing & generation) appears on 31 (15.1%). Because a single family can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive groupings.

Technology composition (IPC subclass)H04N · Pictorial communication (video…18992.2%G06T · Image data processing & genera…3115.1%G09G · Display control circuits125.9%G06F · Electric digital data processi…94.4%G06K · Data recognition & presentation83.9%G06N · Computing based on AI models52.4%G06V · Image/video recognition52.4%G11B · Information storage (magnetic/…42.0%Other125.9%

Shares are the percentage of the 205 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 Video Codec Chroma Format Subsampling Conversion Encoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Video Codec Chroma Format Subsampling Conversion Encoding Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about video codec chroma format subsampling conversion encoding patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example record

A record from the result set

First record returned under default database order
SG10202502874TA2025-11-27

Encoder, decoder and methods for chroma deblocking in joint chroma coding

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

SG10202502874TA describes a deblocking method for a chroma block edge between two chroma blocks in image encoding or decoding. The method includes a decision process that determines a first chroma quantization parameter for one chroma block based on a luma quantization parameter from an associated luma block, applied in the context of joint chroma coding.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default order, not a ranking by citations, novelty or importance. What the granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself; an abstract and a family count cannot establish claim scope or freedom to operate.

SG10202502874TA, patent drawing 1SG10202502874TA, patent drawing 2
View full 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 Video Codec Chroma Format Subsampling Conversion Encoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. 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 filer and technology data

These figures are drawn directly from the evidence summary. They report counts and shares for single rows or single classes; they do not combine rows or infer strategy.

Top filer
15.6%
share of 205 families

Largest single filer by family count

BYTEDANCE INC is named on 32 of the 205 simple patent families in scope, a 15.6% share. This is a count of named families, not a measure of claim scope or commercial activity, and it applies to this one row only.

Based on 205 simple patent families
Long tail
61 of 84
listed filers with 2 or fewer families

Most listed filers hold very few families

Of the 84 listed filers (organisations only, from a search that returns up to 100 entities), 61 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The filer rows are not mutually exclusive counts of the dataset, since one family can name several filers.

Based on the listed filer table, organisations only
Technology split
92.2%
of families carry H04N

H04N appears on most families in scope

189 of the 205 families (92.2%) carry an H04N classification (pictorial communication: video/TV), and 31 (15.1%) carry G06T (image data processing & generation). Because families can carry more than one class, these two figures are not exclusive of each other.

Based on 205 simple patent families, IPC subclass level
Legal status
50%
of 813 records in force

Half of published records remain in force

405 of 813 published records (50%) were granted and in force at the 2026-10-16 retrieval date. The remaining records are a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused and lapsed status that is not broken out further here.

Based on 813 published records, status at retrieval date
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 video codec chroma format subsampling conversion encoding 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 Video Codec Chroma Format Subsampling Conversion Encoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this analysis

The figures above describe what this search returns. Narrowing the scope or pulling full claim sets is the next step for any decision that depends on more than a count.

Pull granted claim sets for named filers

Family and record counts cannot establish what any single filing covers. Reading claims directly is the only way to assess overlap with a specific design.

Open Eureka to search claims

Track how recent filings are publishing

The 2022-onward window in the filing trend is still filling in as later applications publish. Revisiting the trend periodically gives a fuller picture than reading it once.

Monitor this topic in Eureka

Check classification overlap directly

H04N and G06T shares add to more than 100% of the 205 families because classes overlap. Eureka lets you filter by combined classification criteria rather than reading percentages separately.

Explore IPC filters 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 Video Codec Chroma Format Subsampling Conversion Encoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Video Codec Chroma Format Subsampling Conversion Encoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Video Codec Chroma Format Subsampling Conversion Encoding Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole video codec chroma format subsampling conversion encoding 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:((chroma AND subsampl* AND (conversion 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 92.2% 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 813 records and 205 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 30 of the 84 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 84 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 2026-10-16.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (405 of 813). 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.