GEVC patent in SISVEL AV1 pool appears not essential

As part of an ongoing series examining the patent holders and pools erroneously designating patents as essential, we highlight U.S. Patent 10,460,344 titled “Region merging and coding parameter reuse via merging.” This patent is owned by GE Video Compression (GEVC). GEVC has designated the ’344 patent as essential to the AV1 standard as a part of SISVEL’s AV1 Patent Pool. See AV1 Patent List, AV1 Family AV1-040, available at https://www.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platform/PatentList_AV1.pdf.

GEVC’s U.S. Patent 10,460,344 should not be considered to be essential to the AV1 standard. The ’344 patent is directed to a decoder that uses a merging or grouping of simply connected regions using a reduced amount of data. ’344 patent, Abstract. Namely, a merge indicator indicates whether a region currently being decoded should be reconstructed based on a motion coding parameter. If the indicator indicates copying, the appropriate vector is copied. If the indicator indicates compute, the appropriate motion vector is computed.  Id., claims 1, 9, 17, 26. 

The concept of a merge indicator is an evolved form of motion vector competition. See, e.g., Joel Jung and Guillaume Laroche, “Competition-Based Scheme for Motion Vector Selection and Coding,” VCEG Contribution VCEG-AC06r1, Klagenfurt, Austria, July 2006. In contrast to the ’344 patent and prior motion vector competition literature, the AV1 standard does not employ a merge indicator; rather, the concepts of merging and computing a motion vector is spread over multiple values, not merely an indicator to either copy the ap or compute the motion vector.  See, e.g., AV1 §§ 5.11.26 (assign_mv syntax code used to limit the maximum size of motion vectors); 5.11.23 (syntax); 6.10.22 (semantics describing new_mv, zero_mv, and ref_mv);. 

Thus, the ’344 patent does not appear to be essential to the AV1 standard despite being declared as essential. The public would benefit from appropriate scrutiny of patent pools that allegedly cover critical technical standards, particularly open-source standards such as AV1.

Another InterDigital patent in SISVEL AV1 pool appears not essential

As part of an ongoing series examining the patent holders and pools erroneously designating patents as essential, we highlight U.S. Patent 9,674,556 titled “Methods and apparatus for in-loop de-artifact filtering.” This patent is owned by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. InterDigital has designated the ’556 patent as essential to the AV1 standard as a part of SISVEL’s AV1 Patent Pool. See AV1 Patent List, AV1 Family AV1-056, available at https://www.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platform/PatentList_AV1.pdf.

InterDigital’s ’556 patent should not be considered to be essential to the AV1 standard. The ’556 patent is directed to in-loop artifact filtering, and in particular, two filters for successively performing in-loop filtering. The claims of the ’556 patent require (1) “a deblocking filter for performing a first pass to reduce blocking artifacts” and (2) “an adaptive sparse de-noising filter for performing a second pass to reduce noise.” ’556 patent, claim 1.

The AV1 standard uses a de-ringing filter called CDEF as its second filter, not the ’556 patent’s claimed “de-noising filter.” In detail, the AV1 standard employs a distinct process known as the CDEF (constrained directional enhancement filter) process. According to the AV1 standard, the “purpose of the CDEF is to perform deringing….” See AV1, § 7.15 (emphasis added). Contemporaneous research confirms the CDEF works to reduce ringing artifacts. See Midtskogen et al., “The AV1 Constrained Directional Enhancement Filter (CDEF),” arXiv:1602.05975 [cs.MM], Feb. 18, 2016, p. 1, available at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1602.05975.

Although InterDigital cites the CDEF provisions of the AV1 standard as part of its claims for essentiality, the applicant expressly disclaimed de-ringing filters from the scope of its claims. The ’556 Patent explicitly distinguishes between de-ringing filters (e.g., CDEF) and its claimed “de-noising” filters, listing them as separate filtering options: “At least one of the filters includes, for example, a deblocking filter, a de-ringing filter, a de-noising filter…” ’556 patent, 10:13–16. The difference was confirmed by the applicant during prosecution of the ’556 patent’s parent application, U.S. Patent Application No. 12/312,386, in which the applicant stated that an applied reference’s “deringing filtering does not disclose or suggest a sparse de-noising filter for performing a second pass to reduce noise,” which is similarly included in the ’556 Patent’s claims. See Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application 12/312,386, Response to Office Action filed June 3, 2014, p. 10 (italics in original).

Moreover, AV1 standard’s use of (1) a deblocking filter followed by (2) de-ringing filter was already well known in the art prior to the ’556 Patent. For example, U.S. Patent 7,738,563 to Pelc, filed over two years prior to the ’556 Patent’s earliest priority date, disclosed a “filter 430 [that] applied [1] deblocking filtering operations and then [2] de-ringing filtering operations.” Pelc ‘563, 5:49-52. Similarly, U.S. Patent 8,537,903 to Lim, filed over a year prior to the ’556 Patent’s earliest priority date, disclosed a decoding system with “[1] a de-blocking system configured to receive decoded video data and decoding information and remove blocking artifacts from the decoded video data, and [2] a de-ringing system configured to remove ringing artifacts from the de-blocked video data.” Lim ‘903, Abstract. Again, this is similar to the operations described in the AV1 standard and distinct from a second-stage “adaptive sparse de-noising filter” in the ’556 Patent.

Thus, the ’556 Patent does not appear to be essential to the AV1 standard even though it has been declared essential and actively licensed as being so. The public would benefit from appropriate scrutiny of patent pools that allegedly cover critical technical standards.

The ’556 Patent is related to U.S. Patent 9,277,243, which InterDigital has also declared essential, but whose non-essentiality is reviewed in this post, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/6/15/interdigital-sisvels-av1-pool-us-9227243.

InterDigital patent in SISVEL AV1 pool appears not essential

As part of an ongoing series examining the patent holders and pools erroneously designating patents as essential, we highlight U.S. Patent 9,277,243 titled “Methods and apparatus for in-loop de-artifact filtering.” This patent is owned by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. InterDigital has designated the ’243 patent as essential to the AV1 standard as a part of SISVEL’s AV1 Patent Pool. See AV1 Patent List, AV1 Family AV1-056, available at https://www.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platform/PatentList_AV1.pdf.

InterDigital’s ’243 Patent should not be considered to be essential to the AV1 standard. The ’243 Patent contains a single claim directed to in-loop artifact filtering, and in particular, two filters for successively performing in-loop filtering:  (1) “a deblocking filter for performing a first pass to reduce blocking artifacts” and (2) “an adaptive sparse de-noising filter for performing a second pass to reduce noise.” ’243 Patent, claim 1.

The AV1 standard uses a de-ringing filter called CDEF as its second filter, not the ’243 Patent’s claimed “de-noising filter.” In detail, the AV1 standard employs a distinct process known as the CDEF (constrained directional enhancement filter) process. According to the AV1 standard, the “purpose of the CDEF is to perform deringing….” See AV1, § 7.15 (emphasis added). Contemporaneous research confirms the CDEF works to reduce ringing artifacts. See Midtskogen et al., “The AV1 Constrained Directional Enhancement Filter (CDEF),” arXiv:1602.05975 [cs.MM], Feb. 18, 2016, p. 1, available at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1602.05975.

Although InterDigital cites the CDEF provisions of the AV1 standard as part of its claims for essentiality, the applicant expressly disclaimed de-ringing filters from the scope of its claims. The ’243 Patent explicitly distinguishes between de-ringing filters (e.g., CDEF) and its claimed “de-noising” filters, listing them as separate filtering options: “At least one of the filters includes, for example, a deblocking filter, a de-ringing filter, a de-noising filter…” ’243 Patent, 10:2-5. The difference was confirmed by the applicant during prosecution of the ’243 Patent’s application, U.S. Patent Application No. 12/312,386, in which the applicant stated that an applied reference’s “deringing filtering does not disclose or suggest a sparse de-noising filter for performing a second pass to reduce noise,” which is similarly included in the ’243 Patent’s claims. See Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application 12/312,386, Response to Office Action filed June 3, 2014, p. 10 (italics in original).

Moreover, AV1 standard’s use of (1) a deblocking filter followed by (2) de-ringing filter was already well known in the art prior to the ’243 Patent. For example, U.S. Patent 7,738,563 to Pelc, filed over two years prior to the ’243 Patent’s earliest priority date, disclosed a “filter 430 [that] applied [1] deblocking filtering operations and then [2] de-ringing filtering operations.” Pelc ‘563, 5:49-52. Similarly, U.S. Patent 8,537,903 to Lim, filed over a year prior to the ’243 Patent’s earliest priority date, disclosed a decoding system with “[1] a de-blocking system configured to receive decoded video data and decoding information and remove blocking artifacts from the decoded video data, and [2] a de-ringing system configured to remove ringing artifacts from the de-blocked video data.” Lim ‘903, Abstract. Again, this is similar to the operations described in the AV1 standard and distinct from a second-stage “adaptive sparse de-noising filter” in the ’243 Patent.

Thus, the ’243 Patent does not appear to be essential to the AV1 standard even though it has been declared essential and actively licensed as being so. The public would benefit from appropriate scrutiny of patent pools that allegedly cover critical technical standards.

OPAL, world's most comprehensive SEP landscape tool introduces VENN to automatically show licensor overlap

Unified Portal’s OPAL (Objective PAtent Landscape) report was designed to address asymmetries in the licensing of standard essential patents and to create a more fair and transparent patent licensing process around core patents supporting next waves of consumer technology growth. Portal’s OPAL recently launched its Advanced Analytics for IEEE, Video Codecs, and 3GPP. Users can understand if a given area contains certain contributors or patent pools. In addition, it allows for an advance breakdown between the positive and negative training labels.

For example, the graph below looks at Sisvel WiFi 6 Members that account for 155 of the positive labels (Blue Circle) and 251 of the Negative Labels (Orange Circle). This is the first tool to demonstrate the overlap between licensors, pools and standards.

In another example below, the same can be said of IEEE contributors with 884 positive labels and 2,139 negative labels.

For 3GPP, users can understand the relationship between the various generations of cellular technology.

For Video Codec, Portal users can select between the numerous pools and understand the various breakdowns in relationship to the entire video codec universe.

Unified's OPAL report is a one-of-a-kind patent landscaping tool that leverages advanced machine-learning techniques to create a flexible solution for negotiating and licensing Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). A free trial version is available through Unified's Portal. For more information, view our Methodology or email us at info@unifiedpatents.com.

GE patent dropped from Access Advance HEVC pool after successful Unified challenge

Some patent holders and pools designate their patents as relevant or essential to a standard without proper scrutiny or analysis. As part of an ongoing series examining this dubious practice, we highlight U.S. Patent 10,057,603. The ’603 patent is owned by GE Video Compression. Access Advance LLC had identified this patent as purportedly essential to the H.265 (HEVC) standard as part of the Access Advance Patent Pool. But after an ex parte reexamination initiated by Unified Patents led to a significant narrowing of the claim, Access Advance no longer lists this patent as essential. 

Access Advance had identified claim 1 of the ’603 Patent as allegedly essential. That claim recites:

1. A decoder for decoding a data stream including encoded data of a video, the decoder comprising:

an entropy decoding engine configured to decode data from the data stream based on an arithmetic decoding scheme to obtain a sequence of symbols, 

wherein, with respect to at least one symbol of the sequence of symbols, the entropy decoding engine is configured to:

select a context corresponding to the at least one symbol, and 

entropy decode the at least one symbol using the selected context based on the arithmetic decoding scheme, which includes updating a probability model associated with the selected context at one of a first update rate under a high-efficiency mode of entropy decoding and a second update rate, that is lower than the first update rate, under a low-complexity mode of entropy decoding; and

a reconstructor configured to reconstruct at least a portion of the video based on the sequence of symbols.

Unified filed its reexamination request on December 21, 2020, based on prior art that clearly disclosed claim 1. Given the strength of the prior art, the USPTO quickly determined that a substantial new question of patentability had been raised. A formal rejection issued on June 25, 2021, detailing how the prior art rendered the claim invalid. Of importance here, the claims were found to only cover the specific, corresponding disclosures in the specification rather than the broad, functional language that was clearly taught by the prior art. In the following months, the patent owner attempted to dissuade the examiners of this interpretation, but those attempts failed, and the reexamination concluded on January 26, 2022. 

Under U.S. law, a patentee is only allowed to use the broad, functional language at issue here if it is willing to be limited to the specific disclosures in the patent that correspond to the functional language. Patent asserters like Access Advance have tried to shirk this requirement when asserting their patents, taking advantage of claim language that looks broad on its face. Worse, Access Advance kept this patent in its May 2022 list of allegedly-essential patents only to finally remove it from its October 2022 list, nearly 10 months after the reexamination concluded.

Hence, the importance of formal scrutiny is demonstrable. Overbroad assertions of hundreds of patents that allegedly cover critical technical standards can, and should, be meaningfully analyzed. In the end, the public benefits when it is clear which are the truly valid and essential patents. Challenges to such assertions have a proven track record of sifting the wheat from the chaff.