Is One Word Keeping Your Patent from Being Standard Essential

Determining whether a patent is truly essential to a standard can be a perplexing and complex task. Out of the patents declared as standard essential, the ratio of actually essential patents to declared ones can vary dramatically, ranging from 10% to 80%. This wide variation can be confusing and challenging for companies seeking to navigate the intricate landscape of intellectual property and standards compliance. This is where our expertise comes into play, providing clarity and precision in assessing the essentiality of patents.

Our client, an innovation leader in video encoding and decoding technology, faced such a challenge. They needed to determine if a competitor’s patent, US10021393B2, was essential to the published standards, H.265. The patent, held by GE Video Compression LLC, described a sophisticated method of video decoding, focusing on “binarization” of various syntax elements representing for motion vector differences. Our client needed our expertise to verify the standard essentiality of this patent, as it could have significant implications for their own technological and business strategies, such as licensing agreements, development strategies, and market positioning. Thus, the client required a thorough and precise analysis to navigate these potential implications and sought our expertise to verify the claim.

We embarked on a meticulous and multi-faceted approach to analyze US10021393B2. Our process included several key steps: In-Depth Patent Analysis: We began by dissecting the competitor’s patent, focusing on the core claim involving the use of Exp-Golomb coding. According to US10XXXXX3B2, the Exp-Golomb code should function as a suffix following a truncated unary code. We paid close attention to the detailed description of how this coding method was implemented and the specific claims made in the patent.

Standard Examination: Next, we thoroughly examined the ITU-T H.265 standard, particularly the section on motion vector difference coding. This step involved understanding the procedures laid out in the standard specification. We discovered that there are 4 syntax elements of motion vector differences, viz,

We analyzed the sections disclosing the binarization of syntax elements of mvd_coding. Technical Comparison: With detailed insights from both the patent and the standard, we conducted a technical comparison. We realized that the claim requires each binarization of motion vector difference to include an Exp-Golomb code of order 1 as suffix. Note that the word suffix indicates that the Exp-Golomb code of order 1 should be at the end of the binary representation of motion vector differences. However, our findings revealed a crucial difference: the standard placed the Exp-Golomb code in middle of the binary representation, not at the end. Thus, the Exp-Golomb code of order 1 could not be treated as suffix. Because of this discrepancy and the use of the word "suffix" in the claim, the patent could not be classified as a Standard Essential Patent.

Our detailed and systematic analysis led to a pivotal insight: despite the advanced technology described in US10021393B2, the patent did not align perfectly with the ITU-T H.266 standard due to the placement of the Exp-Golomb code. This single but significant difference meant the patent could not be classified as a Standard Essential Patent. We documented our findings in a comprehensive report, which we presented to our client. The report clearly outlined why the competitor’s patent was non-essential, focusing on the specific technical deviations and their implications. Our explanation was detailed, yet clear, ensuring our client fully understood the reasons behind the non-essentiality conclusion. This revelation had significant implications for our client. Understanding that the competitor’s patent was not essential allowed them to proceed with greater confidence in their strategic planning. It helped them avoid potential legal and financial challenges associated with licensing negotiations and provided clarity on the competitive landscape.

Our thorough analysis, precise insights, and dedication to excellence in IP research ensured accurate and reliable findings. By identifying a critical discrepancy in the Exp-Golomb code placement, we provided invaluable guidance for strategic decisions. Our commitment to delivering reliable analyses underscores our role as a trusted partner in navigating IP complexities and standards compliance, reinforcing our reputation for expertise and reliability.