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
How large is the Velos Media portfolio reviewed here?
The analysis rests on 38 active granted patents identified for Velos Media as related to HEVC technology. Each was evaluated by manually mapping its independent claim elements to the relevant sections of the H.265 standard. Coverage includes block based coding, predictive coding, transformation and quantization, multi layer coding, and filtering, so the findings can be read by technology area rather than as a single total. That structure helps when comparing the portfolio with the parts of HEVC a given product implements.
What method sits behind the essentiality findings?
Relevant patents were found first, through searches across multiple patent databases using search strings, IPC and CPC classifications, and keywords specific to HEVC. Each claim was then compared with the H.265 standard to see whether the elements of the claim appear in the specification. A claim whose elements all align is considered essential. A claim with a missing element, or one that conflicts with the standard, is considered non-essential. Essentiality is checked against all versions of HEVC.
What decisions does this report support?
It is meant to inform decisions that turn on a portfolio’s relationship to H.265: preparing for a licensing negotiation, assessing exposure before shipping a product that implements HEVC, valuing or reviewing a portfolio, and scoping deeper legal analysis. The report does not replace a legal opinion, but it narrows where one is needed. Copies are supplied on request through the contact page, and scope can be adjusted to fit the decision at hand.
