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 →618 patent families on decoded picture buffer and frame buffer management in video decoders, led by one filer at 20.2% share.
4,479 published records collapse into 618 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. QUALCOMM INC is named on 125 of the 618 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 In force = 2,870 of 4,479 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This landscape draws on a search for reference frame buffer, decoded picture buffer and frame buffer management terms combined with video decoding language across title, abstract and claims. It returns 618 simple patent families and 4,479 published records, with no date limit applied to the underlying search. A single invention can generate several published records as it is filed into different receiving offices, which is why the record count runs well above the family count.
The technology composition sits heavily inside pictorial communication classifications tied to video and television coding, which is consistent with the subject matter the search string targets. Legal status is tracked at the record level: 2,870 of the 4,479 records (64%) were granted and still in force at the retrieval date, a snapshot that will keep shifting as more records are examined, lapse or get renewed.
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, LG ELECTRONICS INC, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD). 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 (10 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 90 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 90 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 two charts below use different units, published records for the filing trend, simple patent families for the technology composition, and are not interchangeable.
Records counted by earliest filing year ran from 154 in 2007 to a peak of 654 in 2013, then rose again from 77 in 2018 to 365 in 2021, a +374% increase over that three-year span. 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings publish, so that stretch of the chart 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 2007-2026 (4,374 records); the 4,479 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
H04N (pictorial communication for video and TV) appears on 589 of the 618 simple patent families, 95.3% of the total. Because a family can carry more than one classification, this share is not exclusive of the smaller classes the chart also shows.
Shares are the percentage of the 618 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 decoder reference frame buffer management patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThis record describes storing previously decoded pictures of a video stream in a decoded picture buffer, including multiple first pictures of the same temporal sub-layer, at least one of which serves as a sub-layer reference picture for predicting a current picture. The method identifies the NAL unit type of a picture in that buffer, removes a picture from the buffer based on that type, and decodes the current picture using the buffer's remaining contents.This is the first record returned by the database's default order, not a ranking by citations, grant status or breadth. It illustrates one way decoded picture buffer management is claimed in this dataset, not a representative or landmark filing.


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 sitting with before drawing any conclusion about the field.
Qualcomm Inc is named on 125 of the 618 simple patent families in scope, a 20.2% share. This is a single-row figure; filer rows overlap because a family can name more than one filer, so this share cannot be added to any other row's share to build a combined total.
Of the 90 organisations returned by this search and listed by volume, 43 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed filers are organisations; filings held by named individuals are excluded from this list where they can be identified but remain inside the overall family and record totals.
589 of the 618 simple patent families in scope, 95.3%, carry an H04N (pictorial communication for video/TV) classification. Families can carry more than one IPC class, so this share is not exclusive of the other classes present in the same dataset.
2,870 of the 4,479 published records, 64%, were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. This is a point-in-time legal status marker, not a measure of filing quality or a success rate, and it will continue to shift as records are examined, lapse or get renewed.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to video decoder reference frame buffer management patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The figures here describe what this search returned. Going further requires reading the underlying documents directly.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Use Patsnap Eureka to retrieve and compare the full claim sets for any filer or record named in this dataset before drawing conclusions about scope.
Open EurekaThe filer list here is ordered by volume only and covers the listed organisations, not the full set of 90 returned. Eureka can monitor new publications from any of them as they appear.
Open Eureka2022-onward filings are still publishing and will raise the counts shown here. Re-running this search periodically in Eureka shows how that window closes over time.
Open EurekaThis search returns 618 simple patent families and 4,479 published records for terms covering reference frame buffer, decoded picture buffer and frame buffer management combined with video decoding language. The family count de-duplicates the same invention across countries, while the record count counts each publication separately, which is why it runs much higher. No date limit was applied to the search, so this spans every matching record the database holds regardless of filing date.
Qualcomm Inc is named on 125 of the 618 simple patent families in scope, a 20.2% share, the highest of any single row in the filer list returned by this search. That list includes 90 organisations counted by volume, of which 43 hold 2 or fewer families each, so the field outside the top row is spread thinly. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and can overlap when a family names more than one filer, so these shares cannot be summed into a combined concentration figure.
Measured in published records by earliest filing year, filings rose from 77 in 2018 to 365 in 2021, a +374% increase over that three-year span, after an earlier peak of 654 records in 2013. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, and up to 30 months for PCT applications entering national phase, so those recent years understate eventual volume. The trend should not be read as declining or slowing based on the most recent years shown.
This record describes a method of storing previously decoded pictures from a video stream in a decoded picture buffer, where the stored pictures include a sub-layer reference picture used to predict a current picture, and removing a picture from the buffer based on its NAL unit type before decoding the current picture. It is the first record returned by this search's default ordering, not a ranking by citation count, breadth or grant status, and should not be treated as representative of the field. What its granted claims actually require, and how far they reach, can only be established by reading the claim set itself, not from this abstract or any family count.
589 of the 618 simple patent families in scope, 95.3%, carry an H04N classification covering pictorial communication for video and television. Because families can carry more than one IPC classification, this share overlaps with smaller classes shown in the chart rather than excluding them. The dataset covers 24 subclasses in total, but the concentration in one pictorial-communication classification is consistent with the video-decoding subject matter the search string targets.
Go past this page: query the whole video decoder reference frame buffer management 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:(("reference frame buffer" OR "decoded picture buffer" OR "frame buffer management") AND video AND decod*)
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 95.3% 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 4,479 records and 618 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 (10 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 90 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 90 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 2026-10-27.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (2,870 of 4,479). 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