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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/video-encoder-rate-control-bit-allocation-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-20 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Media, Audio & Immersive InterfacesVideo Encoder Rate Control and Bit Allocation Patents
A 82-family dataset on rate control and bit allocation in video coding, with filer spread and a filing trend to explore in Eureka.
190
Published Records
82
Simple Patent Families
US
Leading Jurisdiction
70
Filers Listed (max 100)
190 published records collapse into 82 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country.
- 82 simple patent families and 190 published records sit in scope, with no start-year limit on the search string used to build this set.
- Two filers, MediaTek Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, share the top count, each named on 5 of the 82 families, with no single row ahead of both.
- 64 of the 70 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, a long tail that sits alongside the two filers tied at the top.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This page tracks records matching "rate control" AND "bit allocation" together with "video encoder" OR "video coding" across titles, abstracts and claims. The search carries no date limit, so every matching record regardless of filing date is in scope, and the result set spans 82 simple patent families built from 190 published records. H04N (pictorial communication, video/TV) appears on 97.6% of the families, which is expected given the search terms target video coding directly.
82 families is a small pool. The numbers here are a starting point for a search, not a map of the field, gaps in the chart are as likely to reflect the search string as they are to reflect an absence of filings.
Families by filing year (published records, recent window)
Counted over all 190 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 96 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, UNIV OF ELECTRONICS SCI & TECH OF CHINA). 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. Counted one by one, those rows between them cover more than the largest single row does, so the largest single row is not necessarily the largest filer in this field. How much those rows cover together is not something this dataset can say: one family can name several of them, so their counts cannot be added. Every ranking statement on this page is per individual filer row, never per group. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (1 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 70 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 70 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 Encoder Rate Control Bit Allocation Algorithm 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
The data
Filing trend and technology mix
Two views of the same 82-family, 190-record dataset: records by earliest filing year, and IPC subclasses by share of families.
Filing trend (published records) (96 of 190 published records)
Records run from 12 in 2007 down to 0 in 2026, counted by earliest filing year. 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings publish, and 2007 is the first year this window shows, 94 records filed before it sit outside the chart, so 2007 is the highest year shown here, not a the highest year shown.
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 (96 records); the 190 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window. 2007 is the highest year shown, but it is also the first year in the window: earlier filings sit outside this chart, so this is not necessarily the historical peak.
Technology composition (IPC subclasses)
H04N (pictorial communication, video/TV) is named on 80 of the 82 families (97.6%). Families can carry more than one IPC subclass, so this figure does not imply the remaining classes are absent from those same records, it states the one subclass with a share high enough to read.
Shares are the percentage of the 82 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 Encoder Rate Control Bit Allocation Algorithm 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 Encoder Rate Control Bit Allocation Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about video encoder rate control bit allocation algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaExample record
One record from the result set
As filed
Systems and methods for rate control in video coding using joint machine learning and game theory
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
The abstract describes a joint machine learning and game theory (MLGT) framework for video coding rate control, including a machine-learning-based rate-distortion model classification scheme and a mixed model-based game theory approach aimed at inter-frame coding tree unit (CTU) level bit allocation in HEVC, with CTUs classified via an SVM-based multi-classification scheme.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. Nothing about its place in the field can be read from that order.
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 Encoder Rate Control Bit Allocation Algorithm 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
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 →Signals in the data
What the counts show
Three figures from the same 82-family, 190-record dataset, each read on its own terms.
Joint top filer row
5 families
MediaTek Inc / Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
Two rows tied at the top count
MediaTek Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd are each named on 5 of the 82 simple patent families (6.1% each, the largest single-row figure on the page). Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and are not summed here, so this states what each row holds on its own, not a combined position.
Counted in simple patent families
Spread across filers
64 of 70
filers hold 2 or fewer families
Most listed filers hold very few families
Of the 70 listed filers returned by the search, 64 are named on 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows sum to more than the 82-family total because one family can name several filers, so this count, not a combined share, is the figure that describes how the filings are spread.
Counted in simple patent families; filer list covers organisations only
Technology concentration
97.6%
of families carry H04N
H04N appears on nearly all families
80 of the 82 families (97.6%) carry IPC subclass H04N, pictorial communication for video and TV. This reflects that the search string targets video coding directly; it does not establish that the field itself is concentrated in one technology area.
Families can carry more than one IPC subclass, so shares exceed 100% in total
Receiving offices
12 offices
returned in the office breakdown
Filings were made across a number of offices
The search returned 12 receiving offices in total, with the United States (83), China (28), Europe/EPO (24) and WIPO/PCT (22) among the largest counted in published records. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.
Counted in published records, which sum to more than the family total
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 encoder rate control bit allocation algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Video Encoder Rate Control Bit Allocation Algorithm 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
Where to take this in Eureka
This page surfaces the shape of the dataset. Eureka is where you pull the underlying records, read claims directly, and track new filings as they publish.
Read the granted claims
A family count or an abstract cannot tell you what a claim set actually requires. Pull the full claim text for any record named here before drawing a scope conclusion.
Open in Eureka →Track the filing window as it fills in
Records from 2022 onward are still publishing. Set up monitoring so new filings in this search string surface as they appear rather than relying on a single snapshot.
Set up tracking →Check filer rows individually
Several listed rows share a name fragment but are not merged in this dataset. Review each row's own families rather than treating similarly named entries as one filer.
Explore filers →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 Encoder Rate Control Bit Allocation Algorithm 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 about this dataset
This search returns 82 simple patent families, built from 190 published records, with no date limit applied to the underlying search string. A family groups one invention across the countries it was filed in, while a record counts each publication separately, so the two figures answer slightly different questions. Because the search string targets specific phrasing, a different set of terms would likely return a different count, so this number describes this search rather than a count of all patents in the area.
MediaTek Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd are tied at the top, each named on 5 of the 82 simple patent families. Beyond that pair, 64 of the 70 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is a long tail rather than a small group holding most of the filings. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and its subsidiaries, or multiple divisions of the same company, can appear as separate rows and should not be added together.
IPC subclass H04N, covering pictorial communication including video and TV, is named on 80 of the 82 families (97.6%), which follows directly from a search string built around video coding terms. A handful of other subclasses appear at much lower shares, but at this volume the dataset cannot distinguish a genuine secondary branch from search-term noise, so no further technology breakdown is reliable enough to report here. Families can carry more than one IPC subclass at once, which is why shares do not sum to 100%.
No. A family count measures how many separate inventions a filer has registered in this search, not the scope, validity or enforceability of any claim. Two filers being tied on the same count tells you they filed the same number of families in this dataset; it says nothing about how broad either filer's claims are. Reading claim scope, strength or commercial value out of a count is not something this kind of data can support, that requires reading the granted claims themselves.
No. 82 families is a small pool, the filer list caps at the top 70 returned (not all filers that could match), and the search string itself sets the boundary of what is captured. This page is built to show the shape of one search, not to serve as a freedom-to-operate map, and any FTO conclusion needs full claim text, legal status and a search scoped specifically to the design in question rather than inferred from family counts or abstracts.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Video Encoder Rate Control Bit Allocation Algorithm 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 Encoder Rate Control Bit Allocation Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole video encoder rate control bit allocation algorithm patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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:("rate control" AND "bit allocation" AND ("video encoder" OR "video coding"))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 97.6% 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 190 records and 82 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 (1 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 70 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 70 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.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.