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 →Analysis of 336 patent families on tile-based parallel video decoding, led by Qualcomm with a long tail of single-filing entities.
1,419 published records collapse into 336 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. Filing growth = 2018 (40 records) → 2021 (45); 2021 is the last year we treat as complete. QUALCOMM INC is named on 25 of the 336 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.
This dataset covers 336 simple patent families (1,419 published records) returned by a search for tile, parallel and decoding or video decoder/codec terms appearing together. The search string sets no date limit, so the records span whatever filing years the matching documents happen to carry; the filing-trend chart below shows a recent window only, not the full scope of the result set. A record is counted once per publication; a family groups those publications by invention, so the two totals answer different questions.
98 organisations are returned as filers, counted in simple patent families, though the filer table on the page shows only the 30 largest of them. The listed filers include no individual inventors, those are removed from the filer list but remain inside every total and share quoted on this page.
Counted over all 1,419 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 1,270 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. 3 rows in this table share the name ELECTRONICS (ELECTRONICS & TELECOMM RES INST, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD, LG ELECTRONICS INC). 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. 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 98 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 98 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.
The figures below are drawn directly from the search result set: a filing-trend series counted in published records, and an IPC subclass breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Records counted by earliest filing year ran from 13 in 2007 to a peak of 222 in 2013, with 18 recorded for 2026 so far. Filings in 2018 reached 40 and in 2021 reached 45, a +13% change over that span; 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings continue to publish, so those years should not be read as a drop in activity.
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. The growth figure above therefore stops at 2021. This chart covers 2007-2026 (1,270 records); the 1,419 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
H04N (pictorial communication, video/TV) appears on 64.0% of the 336 families in scope, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 16.4%. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add up to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive.
Shares are the percentage of the 336 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 tile based parallel decoding architecture patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe abstract describes accessing a binary string that represents a partition of a video into coding tree units (CTUs) forming CTU rows, then for each CTU determining whether it is the first CTU in a slice or tile. Where parallel decoding is enabled and the CTU is the first CTU in a CTU row of a tile, the method determines an available flag for that CTU, a step tied to how tile boundaries are handled during parallel decoding.This is the first record returned by the search under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. Nothing about its position here indicates how representative it is of the other 335 families.


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 this dataset are worth separating out, each with its own denominator and its own limits on what it can support.
Qualcomm Inc is named on 25 of the 336 simple patent families in scope, a 7.4% share. Three listed rows begin with the same name elsewhere in the table (Electronics & Telecomm Res Inst, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, LG Electronics Inc); they are listed separately and are not added together here.
Of the 98 listed filing entities, 67 hold two or fewer simple patent families each. This figure describes how the listed rows are spread out; it is not a share and cannot be combined with any other row's count.
H04N (pictorial communication, video/TV) is present on 215 of the 336 families (64.0%); G06F (electric digital data processing) is present on 55 (16.4%). A family can carry both classes along with others, so these two shares are not mutually exclusive.
The search returns 1,419 published records against 336 simple patent families, reflecting that a single invention can be published multiple times across different offices. The two counts answer different questions and should not be substituted for each other.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to video codec tile based parallel decoding architecture patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures here describe what a text search returned, not a verified technology map. The following moves help separate signal from search-string noise before drawing further conclusions.
An abstract and a family count describe what a filing discusses, not what its claims legally cover. Reading the granted claim set is the only way to assess scope for a specific record.
Open a record in EurekaFiler rows in this dataset are not rolled up to corporate group, and one family can name several filers. Any comparison across rows should stay at the single-row level.
Explore filer detail in EurekaPublication lag means 2022 onward is still filling in. Re-running the search later will raise those counts without indicating any change in underlying activity.
Set up tracking in EurekaThis search returns 336 simple patent families and 1,419 published records matching terms for tile, parallel and decoding or video decoder/codec. The family count groups related publications by invention, while the record count counts each publication separately, so the same invention filed in several countries adds multiple records but only one family. The search string sets no date limit, so this total spans whatever filing years the matching documents happen to carry, not a fixed recent window.
Qualcomm Inc is named on 25 of the 336 simple patent families in scope, the largest single-row share at 7.4%. Three other listed rows share a name prefix with other entities in the table (Electronics & Telecomm Res Inst, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, LG Electronics Inc) but are counted separately, not combined. Beyond the largest rows, 67 of the 98 listed filing entities hold two or fewer families each, so the filing activity in this set is spread across a long tail of smaller filers rather than concentrated in a handful of names.
IPC subclass coverage shows H04N (pictorial communication, video/TV) on 215 of the 336 families (64.0%) and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 55 families (16.4%). Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, these percentages are not mutually exclusive and add up to more than 100% across the full classification spread. The dataset includes additional subclasses below these two, but at this pool size a broad search term can also pull in classes unrelated to the core topic, so the two largest are the ones worth reading into.
Counted by earliest filing year in published records, filings ran from 13 in 2007 to a peak of 222 in 2013, with 2018 at 40 and 2021 at 45 records, a +13% change over that span. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in, because a filing typically takes roughly 18 months to publish and up to 30 months where it enters national phase via the PCT route. This means recent-year counts should not be read as slowing activity; they reflect publication lag rather than a change in filing behaviour.
No. An abstract describes what a filing discusses in general terms, and a family or record count describes how many related filings exist, but neither establishes what a granted claim actually requires. Claim scope is set by the specific wording of the granted claims and by the prosecution history behind them, which can narrow or clarify terms used in the abstract. Anyone assessing a specific design against a specific patent needs to read that patent's granted claim set directly rather than relying on the abstract or on aggregate counts like the ones in this dataset.
Go past this page: query the whole video codec tile based parallel decoding architecture 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:((tile AND parallel AND (decoding OR "video decoder" OR "video codec")))
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 64.0% 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 1,419 records and 336 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 98 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 98 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, and the growth figure stops at 2021. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-16.
Legal status. Legal status was not available for this search, so no in-force figure is shown. 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