Description
To identify relevant patents, comprehensive searches were conducted across multiple patent databases using a combination of search strings, IPC/CPC classifications, and HEVC–specific keywords.
To determine the essentiality of a patent, each claim is compared to the H.265 standard to identify whether the patented claim’s elements are present in the standard. Essentiality is checked with respect to all versions of HEVC, respectively, as improvements have been gradually implemented to address evolving technological demands in HEVC.
Patented claim is compared to the standard, and if every element of the claim aligns with the H.265 specifications, the patent is considered essential. On the other hand, if any element is not present or there is a contradiction between the claim and the standard (e.g., conflicting requirements or descriptions), the patent is considered non-essential. This manual evaluation process ensures that only patents fully aligned with the H.265 standard’s requirements are classified as essential.
Frequently asked questions
What does this report say about Qualcomm’s HEVC portfolio?
It presents an essentiality analysis of Qualcomm’s patent portfolio against the HEVC/H.265 standard. The study identified 231 active granted patents held by Qualcomm that relate to HEVC technology. The analysis covers the main technical areas of the standard, including block based coding, predictive coding, transformation and quantization, multi-layer coding, and filtering. Every patent was assessed by mapping the elements of its independent claims to the relevant sections of the standard.
Which versions of HEVC is essentiality checked against?
All versions of HEVC are used in the check. The standard has been improved in stages to meet changing technical demands, so a claim that does not read on an early version may read on a later one. Each patent claim is compared with the H.265 text and treated as essential only when every element of the claim aligns with the specification. Where an element is absent, or contradicts the standard, the patent is treated as non-essential.
Is the analysis automated?
No. Each patent is evaluated by hand, by mapping the elements of its independent claims to the relevant sections of the standard. A manual comparison is used because claim language and specification language rarely match word for word, and a judgement is needed on whether an element is genuinely present. The outcome for each patent can be traced to a claim and a section of the standard, so your own reviewers can follow the reasoning.
How do I obtain the report and can it be tailored?
It is available on request through the contact page. Nothing is sold through an online cart, so a request begins with a short discussion of your purpose. Scope can be tailored, for example by restricting the study to one technical area such as filtering or multi-layer coding, by extending the review beyond the identified granted patents, or by delivering the mapping as claim charts for negotiation or litigation support work.
