https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/video-codec-wavefront-parallel-processing-for-entropy-decoding-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Video Codecs

Wavefront Parallel Processing Patents for Video Entropy Decoding

72 patent families and 940 records cover wavefront parallel processing for video entropy decoding, led by a single filer on 20.8% of families.

940
Published Records
72
Simple Patent Families
US
Leading Jurisdiction
33
Filers Listed (max 100)

940 published records collapse into 72 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country.

  • 72 simple patent families and 940 published records match this search, with no date limit applied.
  • Qualcomm Inc is named on 15 of 72 families (20.8%), the highest share of any single filer in this set.
  • 23 of the 33 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each the rest of the list is a long tail of smaller filings.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This search pulls records matching wavefront parallel processing (or the acronym WPP) combined with entropy or decoding terms, within video-related filings. It returns 72 simple patent families and 940 published records, with no date limit set on the search itself. The technology composition is concentrated: H04N (pictorial communication, i.e. video/TV) appears on 97.2% of the families in scope.

72 families is a small pool. The figures below describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, treat this page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished map.

Families by filer and by IPC subclass
  1. QUALCOMM INC15
  2. BYTEDANCE INC6
  3. GE VIDEO COMPRESSION LLC4
  4. LG ELECTRONICS INC4
  5. HUAWEI TECH CO LTD4
  6. KIA CORPORATION3
  7. DOLBY VIDEO COMPRESSION LLC3
  8. TENCENT AMERICA LLC3
  9. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD3
  10. DOUYIN VISION CO LTD3

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; 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 33 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 33 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 Wavefront Parallel Processing for Entropy Decoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 technology split

The two views below use different units, published records for the trend, and simple patent families for the IPC composition, so the figures are not directly comparable to each other.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)

Records run from 2011 (4) with a peak of 276 in 2013. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications continue to publish, so the recent end of the chart understates eventual totals and should not be read as a decline.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)07515022530042011276201320152017201920212023202562022 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 2011-2026 (939 records); the 940 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition (share of 72 families)

H04N (pictorial communication, video/TV) is named on 97.2% of the 72 families in scope. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC class, subclass shares in the underlying chart add up to more than 100%.

IPC subclass composition (share of 72 families)H04N · Pictorial communication (video…7097.2%G06T · Image data processing & genera…22.8%B60L · Electric vehicle propulsion11.4%C11B · Fatty oils & waxes production11.4%G06V · Image/video recognition11.4%H02M · Power conversion (AC/DC etc.)11.4%H04L · Digital information transmissi…11.4%

Shares are the percentage of the 72 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 Wavefront Parallel Processing for Entropy Decoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Video Codec Wavefront Parallel Processing for Entropy Decoding Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about video codec wavefront parallel processing for entropy decoding patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in Focus

One record from the result set

First record returned (database default order)
US9332259B22016-05-03

Indication of use of wavefront parallel processing in video coding

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

A video encoder generates a bitstream that includes a syntax element indicating whether a picture is encoded using wavefront parallel processing (WPP) across the whole picture, or encoded tile-by-tile without WPP. A video decoder parses that syntax element and, depending on its value, decodes the picture entirely using WPP or decodes it without WPP on a per-tile basis.US9332259B2, assigned to Qualcomm Incorporated, published 2016-05-03. This is the first record the search returns under default ordering, not a ranking by citations, scope or relevance.

US9332259B2, patent drawing 1US9332259B2, 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 Wavefront Parallel Processing for Entropy Decoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 from this dataset, reported as counted, with no ranking or interpretation added.

Largest single filer
20.8%
of 72 families

Qualcomm Inc named on 15 families

Qualcomm Inc is named on 15 of the 72 simple patent families in scope (20.8%). This is a single-row share and does not describe any other filer or any combination of filers.

Filer list, simple patent families
Long tail
23 of 33
listed filers

Most listed filers hold 2 or fewer families

23 of the 33 listed filers (organisations only) hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows sum to more than the 72-family total because a family can name more than one filer, so the rows are not additive.

Filer list, simple patent families
Technology composition
97.2%
of 72 families

H04N appears on nearly all families

The IPC subclass H04N (pictorial communication, video/TV) is attached to 70 of the 72 families in scope (97.2%). Other subclasses returned by the search sit well below this share.

IPC subclass, simple patent families
Record volume
940
published records

940 records across 72 families

The dataset holds 940 published records against 72 simple patent families, reflecting the same inventions republished across multiple offices rather than 940 separate inventions.

Published records, no date limit
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 wavefront parallel processing for entropy decoding 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 Wavefront Parallel Processing for Entropy Decoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Go deeper with Eureka

This page reports counts from one search string. Confirming scope, status or relationships between filers requires pulling the underlying documents.

Read the granted claims

Family counts and abstracts cannot establish what any patent covers. Pull the granted claim set for any record that matters to your work before drawing conclusions about scope.

Open Eureka

Widen or narrow the search string

A single search string can miss adjacent terminology or catch unrelated fields. Testing variants helps separate genuine coverage from noise in a pool this size.

Explore in Eureka

Check legal status per record

This page does not include legal status data. Status changes continuously and needs to be checked directly against the record of interest.

Search 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 Wavefront Parallel Processing for Entropy Decoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. 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 Video Codec Wavefront Parallel Processing for Entropy Decoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-20. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Video Codec Wavefront Parallel Processing for Entropy Decoding Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole video codec wavefront parallel processing for entropy decoding 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:(("wavefront parallel processing" OR WPP) AND (entropy OR decod*) AND video)

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 97.2% 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 940 records and 72 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 33 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 33 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 2026-10-20.

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.