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 →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 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 In force = 405 of 813 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
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 That figure describes legal status at a single point in time across pending, withdrawn, refused and lapsed documents combined; it is not a measure of how strong or how commercially active any individual filing is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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 EurekaSG10202502874TA 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.


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 →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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 claimsThe 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 EurekaH04N 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 EurekaThis search returns 205 simple patent families, representing 813 published records across 33 receiving offices. No date limit was applied to the search string, so this set reflects every record it matches regardless of filing year. A family count is not a count of granted patents: some of the underlying records are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed rather than granted and in force.
BYTEDANCE INC is named on 32 of the 205 simple patent families (15.6%), the highest share among the 84 listed filers (organisations only; the full filer list returned by the search can include individuals, who are excluded from this ranked table but still counted in the totals). This figure describes family count alone; it does not indicate claim strength, scope or commercial reach. Filer names are not rolled up to corporate group, so related entities with similar names appear as separate rows and are not combined here.
No. The filer list returned 84 entities, counted by simple patent family, but the data endpoint caps results at 100 entities and the page table shows only the top 30 of those returned. Filings held by named individuals have also been removed from the organisation list, though they remain inside the overall totals for families and records. Treat the 84 as the listed filers the search surfaced, not as a complete census of everyone active in this space.
Published records by earliest filing year rise from 4 in 2008 to a peak of 124 in 2020, counted as published documents rather than distinct inventions, since a single invention filed in several countries adds a mark for each filing. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in because of publication lag, typically 18 months, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase, so the most recent years understate eventual volume. The chart should not be read as showing a decline toward the present.
H04N (pictorial communication: video/TV) appears on 189 of the 205 families in scope, a 92.2% share, and G06T (image data processing & generation) appears on 31 families, 15.1%. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC classification, these two shares add up to more than 100% rather than partitioning the dataset. Fifteen IPC subclasses appear across the full set; the figures above describe only the subclasses with a non-trivial presence in it.
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.
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.
This page