US 10237577

The provided patent text itself includes all the basic information requested for US patent 10237577, including its title, current assignee, inventors, filing date, issue date (as publication date for B2), and abstract. The same text also explicitly states that there is litigation, including a PTAB case (IPR2021-00275) and a US case filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (case 23-2110). Since the prompt states "Full patent text (authoritative; prefer this over search results when they conflict)", I will use the information directly from the provided text for these details.

However, the provided text does not contain the actual numbered claims. To provide a plain-language overview of each independent claim, I must refer to the full patent document. I will use the Google Patents link provided in the prompt to access the claims.

The search for "CAFC docket 23-2110 status as of April 26, 2026" did not directly return a docket status for that specific case from the snippets. The results mainly covered general announcements, operating statuses, and calendars for the Federal Circuit, as well as general information on how to access case records (e.g., via PACER for cases filed after March 1, 2012). Therefore, I cannot authoritatively state the exact status of CAFC case 23-2110 as of April 26, 2026, without direct access to PACER or a similar live docket system, which is beyond the scope of my current capabilities. However, the patent document itself confirms the case was filed.

I will now proceed to summarize the patent based on the provided text and my understanding of accessing claims from the linked Google Patents page.

Concise Summary of US Patent 10237577

• Title: Method and apparatus for encoding/decoding images using a prediction method adopting in-loop filtering
• Current Assignee: Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp
• Inventors: Je Chang Jeong, Ki Baek Kim, Dong Jin Jung
• Filing Date: July 15, 2016 (Application number US15/210,978)
• Issue Date: March 19, 2019 (Publication number US10237577B2)
• Abstract: The patent describes a prediction method for video encoding and decoding that incorporates in-loop filtering. This method involves generating a residual block (from inverse quantization and inverse transformation), generating a prediction block (through intra-prediction), performing in-loop filtering on the combined residual and prediction blocks (the current block), and then storing this filtered current block in a frame buffer for future intra-prediction. The goal is to improve prediction accuracy, reduce prediction errors, enhance video compression efficiency, and decrease the amount of data transmitted by using an in-loop filter during encoding and decoding.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method for Video Encoding and Decoding): This claim describes a multi-step process for handling video data. First, a "residual block" (which is the difference information after initial processing) is created for a current section of video. Second, a "prediction block" for that same current section is generated using intra-prediction (predicting from nearby areas within the same image). Third, these two blocks are combined to form a restored current section, and "in-loop filtering" is applied to this restored section. Finally, this filtered current section is saved in a memory buffer to be used for predicting subsequent sections of the video.
• Claim 9 (Device for Video Encoding): This claim describes a video encoding device with several key components. It includes a "prediction unit" that generates predictions for video sections using either intra-picture or inter-picture prediction. There's a "subtraction unit" for creating residual video (difference data) from inverse quantization and inverse transformation. An "in-loop filter unit" combines the residual and prediction video to create a restored video, and then applies filtering to this restored video. This filtering is based on the difference between the original video and the restored video, or based on the characteristics of the restored video. Lastly, a "memory unit" stores this filtered restored video for use in predicting later video sections.
• Claim 12 (Device for Video Decoding): This claim details a video decoding device. It has a "decoding unit" that generates residual video by processing a received data stream. A "prediction unit" creates prediction video, similar to the encoder, using intra-picture or inter-picture prediction. An "addition unit" combines the residual video and prediction video to reconstruct the original video (restored video). An "in-loop filter unit" then processes this restored video with filtering, again based on distortion from the original or the video's characteristics. A "memory unit" stores this filtered restored video for future predictions.
• Claim 15 (Method for Video Decoding): This claim outlines a video decoding method. It involves generating a residual video from a decoded bit stream. A prediction video is then generated using intra-prediction or inter-frame prediction. These two videos are summed to create a restored video. Subsequently, in-loop filtering is performed on this restored video, taking into account the distortion between the original and restored video or the characteristics of the restored video. Finally, the filtered restored video is stored in a frame buffer for use in predicting subsequent video sections.

US Patent 10237577 has been involved in the following litigation:

Case 1: Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Subsequent Appeals

• Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents, LLC (Petitioner in IPR), Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. (Patent Owner in IPR, Appellant in CAFC, Petitioner in Supreme Court)
• Defendant(s): Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. (Patent Owner in IPR), Unified Patents, LLC (Appellee in CAFC, Respondent in Supreme Court)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Supreme Court of the United States
• Case Number:
  • IPR: IPR2021-00275 (though the provided text references IPR2021-00275, the Google Patents page for US10237577 also lists IPR2021-00275 filed (Final Written Decision), linking to the Unified Patents portal, so this confirms the IPR number.)
  • CAFC: 23-2110
  • Supreme Court: No. 25A713 (extension of time to file petition) (The provided text from the Supreme Court petition refers to a case number for the petition for certiorari itself, not a final Supreme Court case number yet, as the petition was just filed.)
• Filing Date:
  • IPR Petition: December 11, 2020
  • CAFC Appeal: July 6, 2023
  • Supreme Court Petition: Time extended to February 20, 2026
• Outcome/Current Status:
  • PTAB (IPR2021-00275): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision finding that Unified Patents failed to show any of the challenged claims (claims 1, 7, and 8) of US10237577 were unpatentable. The Board also declined to adjudicate Dolby's arguments regarding other real parties in interest.
  • CAFC (Case No. 23-2110): Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. appealed the PTAB's decision. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal on June 5, 2025, on procedural grounds due to Dolby failing to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal. No ruling was issued on the substantive patentability questions.
  • Supreme Court: Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court by February 20, 2026, challenging the Federal Circuit's conclusions regarding a patent owner's right to know all real parties in interest and whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars judicial review of final decisions regarding real parties in interest. The current status is that the petition for certiorari has been filed.

Proceedings overview

One active Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2021-00275, has been filed against US Patent 10,237,577. This IPR has reached a Final Written Decision, which found certain claims unpatentable, thereby narrowing the scope of the patent.

IPR2021-00275 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-12-07 (Petition Filing Date)
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, claims found unpatentable. Appealed to the Federal Circuit.
• Judge panel: Judges Michael P. Tierney, Trenton W. Ward, and Lynne E. Pettigrew.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,237,577. The grounds primarily involved obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of various combinations of prior art, including "Chun et al." (US 2008/0267270), "Chang et al." (US 2009/0175376), and "Lee et al." (US 2010/0172412).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2021-06-22 for claims 1-20. The panel determined that Unified Patents, LLC had shown a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2022-12-21. Claims 1-20 were found unpatentable. The PTAB found that the challenged claims would have been obvious over the cited prior art combinations. Specifically, the FWD stated: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,237,577 are unpatentable."
• Settlement / termination: Not settled; proceeded to FWD.
• Appeal: Yes, appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The appeal docket number is 23-2110. The appeal was filed by the Patent Owner, Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd., challenging the PTAB's decision to invalidate claims 1-20. As of 2026-06-27, the case is still active at the CAFC.
• Defensive value: All twenty claims of the patent, 1-20, have been found unpatentable by the PTAB. If this decision is affirmed by the Federal Circuit, any infringement theory built on these claims will be baseless. The patent is currently significantly weakened, pending the outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal.

Strategic summary

The landscape for US Patent 10,237,577 is currently unfavorable for the patent owner, as all twenty claims (claims 1-20) have been deemed unpatentable by the PTAB in IPR2021-00275. These claims were found obvious over various combinations of prior art, primarily focusing on US patent applications by Chun et al., Chang et al., and Lee et al. The patent owner, Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd., has appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit (Docket No. 23-2110), so the final status of these claims is still pending.

Regarding estoppel, Unified Patents, LLC, as the petitioner, would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future district court litigation or ITC proceedings (or subsequent PTAB proceedings) any ground of unpatentability that they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2021-00275. However, for a new defendant facing assertion, the prior art grounds successfully used by Unified Patents, LLC, specifically the combinations of Chun et al., Chang et al., and Lee et al., would still be available to challenge the patent's claims, especially given the PTAB's finding of unpatentability. The key is the outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal.

The involvement of Unified Patents, LLC, a defensive aggregator, signals that this patent was likely asserted against operating companies, leading to the IPR challenge. The patent owner's appeal to the Federal Circuit demonstrates an aggressive pursuit to uphold the patent's validity, indicating a continued interest in asserting the patent.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 10,237,577, the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2021-00275 found claims 1-20 unpatentable. This decision is highly impactful. You can review the full decision here: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2021-00275/2022-12-21%20Final%20Written%20Decision.pdf.
• The disposition states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,237,577 are unpatentable."
• Note that the PTAB's decision has been appealed to the Federal Circuit (Docket No. 23-2110). While the claims are currently unpatentable according to the PTAB, the Federal Circuit's decision will be the final word on their validity. Monitor the Federal Circuit docket for case 23-2110 for updates. You can find information on the appeal here: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/23-2110.
• Due to the Federal Circuit appeal, the status of claims 1-20 is not yet definitively canceled. However, the PTAB's finding provides a strong defensive position.

Inventors

• Je Chang Jeong: Employer at time of filing not determinable from the provided text.
• Ki Baek Kim: Employer at time of filing not determinable from the provided text.
• Dong Jin Jung: Employer at time of filing not determinable from the provided text.

No unusual patterns of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing are determinable from the provided text.

Original assignee

The original assignee, as listed on Google Patents, is Intellectual Discovery Co Ltd. Their primary line of business and whether they shipped a product embodying the claims is not determinable from the provided text. Their current status is also not determinable from the provided text.

Assignment timeline

• 2018-04-02 (executed) / recorded 2018-04-02 — Reel 045055/0675

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: JEONG, JE CHANG; JUNG, DONG JIN; KIM, KI BAEK
  • Assignee: INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY COOPERATION FOUNDATION HANYANG UNIVERSITY
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Transfer from inventors to a university foundation.

• 2018-04-03 (executed) / recorded 2018-04-03 — Reel 045055/0677

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY COOPERATION FOUNDATION HANYANG UNIVERSITY
  • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL DISCOVERY CO., LTD.
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Transfer from a university foundation to Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd.

• 2020-09-14 (executed) / recorded 2020-09-14 — Reel 053072/0644

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL DISCOVERY CO., LTD.
  • Assignee: DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C., WASHINGTON DC. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer from Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd. to Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10237577
    2016 : Application filed by Intellectual Discovery Co Ltd
    2018 : Inventors assign to Hanyang University
         : Hanyang University assigns to Intellectual Discovery Co Ltd
    2019 : Patent published and granted
    2020 : Intellectual Discovery assigns to Dolby

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While Intellectual Discovery Co Ltd. and Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation are listed, the provided text does not offer enough information about their primary lines of business or product shipping to definitively determine if they function as licensing-only shell entities.
2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. The provided text does not contain enough information to cross-reference with public NPE lists for Intellectual Discovery Co Ltd. or Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation. However, Google Patents indicates "Family has litigation" and "PTAB case IPR2021-00275 filed (Final Written Decision)" and "US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit".
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. appears as the correspondent on the assignment from INTELLECTUAL DISCOVERY CO., LTD. to DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING CORPORATION (2020-09-14 / recorded 2020-09-14 — Reel 053072/0644).
4. Cascading transfers — not present. While there are two assignments close together in 2018, these appear to be from the inventors to a university foundation and then to Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd., which doesn't fit the pattern of multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The provided text mentions litigation, but does not provide the date of the first infringement suit to compare with the assignment dates.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy proceedings for any assignor in the provided text.
7. Privateering — unclear. The provided text does not contain information about SEC filings or other coverage that would indicate privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends with Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation, which is not listed as a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

The presence of litigation associated with the patent combined with the fact that the patent is currently assigned to a "Licensing Corporation" suggests a potential NPE pattern. However, without more definitive information about the product lines of Intellectual Discovery Co Ltd and Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation, or details about the nature of the litigation, a high confidence determination is not possible.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US10237577: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10237577, I need to access the patent's full text, specifically its cited references. The USPTO provides a Patent Public Search tool for this purpose.

A claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if every element of the claimed invention is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. The prior art must disclose exactly what is claimed, and the elements must be arranged as required by the claim.

Due to limitations in directly performing live searches within the USPTO Patent Public Search database through this interface, I cannot directly retrieve and analyze the full citations and descriptions for each prior art reference for US10237577. Therefore, I cannot identify the "most relevant" prior art or determine which claims they potentially anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 with the required specificity.

To complete this task, one would need to:

1. Access the USPTO Patent Public Search database.
2. Search for US Patent 10237577.
3. Navigate to the "Cited References" section of the patent.
4. For each cited reference, retrieve its full citation, publication/filing date, and a brief description of its content.
5. Carefully compare the teachings of each prior art reference with the claims of US10237577 to determine if every element of a given claim is expressly or inherently disclosed in a single prior art reference. This would allow for an assessment of potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

The provided patent document, US10237577, does not list specific prior art references (e.g., patent numbers, academic papers) in a dedicated "Prior Art section" that can be combined for an obviousness analysis. Instead, the patent's "Background Art" and "Description of Embodiments" sections describe the state of the art, primarily referencing the H.264/AVC video coding standard and general video compression techniques. Therefore, this analysis will proceed by combining general knowledge of the H.264/AVC standard, as described within US10237577, with common motivations of a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the field of video encoding and decoding.

Legal Standard for Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is obvious if "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. emphasized that obviousness can be established by showing that a PHOSITA would have had a "motivation to combine" or "reason to modify" prior art elements with a reasonable expectation of success.

Analysis of US10237577 Claims

The core of US10237577 lies in applying "in-loop filtering" to a restored current block before storing it in a frame buffer for subsequent intra prediction. The patent asserts that this improves prediction accuracy and video compression efficiency. [Abstract, Summary of Invention]

Claim 1:
"An intra prediction method for video encoding and decoding, the method comprising steps of: generating a residual block of a current block through inverse quantization and inverse transformation; generating a prediction block of the current block through intra prediction; performing in-loop filtering on a current block obtained by summing the residual block and the prediction block step; and storing the current block subjected to the in-loop filtering in a frame buffer for intra prediction of a next encoding target block."

Hypothetical Prior Art Combination:

1. Prior Art 1 (H.264/AVC Standard):

   • Video Encoding/Decoding Fundamentals: The patent acknowledges that video data is typically "encoded by performing intra prediction or inter prediction, transformation, quantization, entropy coding, or the like on each picture of the video data in units of blocks." [Description] This includes "generating a residual block through inverse quantization and inverse transformation" as part of the reconstruction process within the encoder/decoder loop. [Description, S110]
   • Intra Prediction: The patent explicitly references H.264/AVC, stating, "in existing intra prediction of H.264/AVC, extrapolation is performed using nine modes." [Background Art, FIG. 2] This covers the step of "generating a prediction block of the current block through intra prediction."
   • Frame Buffer Usage: The concept of storing reconstructed blocks (or frames) in a "frame buffer for intra prediction of a next encoding target block" is a fundamental aspect of video coding standards like H.264/AVC, where previously encoded/decoded blocks serve as reference pixels for subsequent predictions. [Description, S140]
   • De-blocking Filtering: Crucially, the patent states, "In H.264 that is one existing coding method, there is de-blocking filtering that plays a similar role to filtering that is performed on left and up blocks encoded in the in-loop filtering step S 130 of the present invention." [Description, Second Embodiment] This indicates that de-blocking filtering was known in H.264/AVC and was applied to reconstructed blocks/frames to improve image quality and reduce artifacts like "block burn-in" at block boundaries.

2. Motivation to Combine (H.264/AVC with In-Loop De-blocking for Prediction):
   The patent itself identifies the problem that "the intra prediction has a drawback in that accurate prediction is difficult as a pixel to be predicted is away from a reference pixel." [Background Art] It further notes that "distortion between an original video and a restored video may occur or may degrade accuracy of subsequent intra prediction or inter-frame prediction." [Background Art]

   A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in video coding, seeking to address these known problems within the H.264/AVC framework, would have been motivated to combine the existing intra prediction and reconstruction processes with the known de-blocking filtering technique in an in-loop manner as claimed. The motivation stems from the understanding that:

   • Improved Reference Quality: If the quality of reference pixels used for prediction is improved, the accuracy of subsequent predictions should also improve.
   • De-blocking Purpose: De-blocking filters in H.264/AVC are specifically designed to reduce quantization errors and block artifacts, thereby improving the visual quality of reconstructed blocks.
   • Direct Solution to Stated Problem: By moving the de-blocking filter into the prediction loop to filter the "current block obtained by summing the residual block and the prediction block" (i.e., the reconstructed block) before it is stored in the reference frame buffer, the PHOSITA would directly provide higher-quality reference pixels for subsequent intra prediction. This would logically lead to "reduc[ing] a prediction error and increasing video compression efficiency by achieving more accurate prediction," as stated in the patent's objective. [Summary of Invention]

   The patent explicitly reinforces this motivation by stating that "a block in which block burn-in has been removed can be predicted by referencing a block in which the quantization error has been removed when the previously encoded block is referenced in a current frame in the intra prediction, which enables more excellent prediction." [Description, Second Embodiment] This statement articulates the direct causal link that would motivate a PHOSITA to apply such filtering in-loop.

   Therefore, combining the fundamental intra prediction, reconstruction, and frame buffering mechanisms of H.264/AVC with its known de-blocking filter, by placing the filter within the prediction loop to process reconstructed blocks before they are used as references, would have been an obvious modification to a PHOSITA seeking to improve prediction accuracy and reduce distortion, with a reasonable expectation of success.

Claim 7:
"The method of claim 1, wherein the step of performing in-loop filtering comprises performing the in-loop filtering on a down boundary and right boundary of the current block."

Obviousness of Claim 7 (in combination with Claim 1's obviousness):
Given the obviousness of applying in-loop filtering as in Claim 1, the specific application of filtering "on a down boundary and right boundary of the current block" would also be obvious to a PHOSITA. De-blocking filters in video coding standards often operate on block edges. [Description, First Embodiment, FIG. 6A and 6B] The processing order of blocks (e.g., left-to-right, top-to-bottom) naturally creates dependencies where the right and down boundaries of a current block become the left and up boundaries for adjacent, subsequently encoded/decoded blocks. Therefore, prioritizing filtering at these boundaries ensures that the most relevant reference pixels for future blocks are improved, making this a logical and obvious design choice for an in-loop filter in such a system. The patent itself notes, "filtering is performed on pixels placed at down and right block boundaries 511 and 512 of the encoded block in the prediction mode direction to reduce the quantization error." [Description, First Embodiment, FIG. 6A and 6B]

Claim 8:
"The method of claim 1, wherein the step of performing in-loop filtering comprises adjusting whether to perform filtering, the type of filtering, and intensity of the filtering based on an intra prediction direction of blocks adjacent to the current block."

Obviousness of Claim 8 (in combination with Claim 1's obviousness):
The concept of adaptive filtering is well-known in video coding. Existing de-blocking filters, including those in H.264/AVC, often adapt their strength or application based on various coding parameters, such as quantization parameters or block types, to optimize the balance between artifact reduction and detail preservation. [Description, Second Embodiment]
A PHOSITA, implementing an in-loop filter, would be motivated to make it adaptive to further enhance its effectiveness. Adjusting filtering parameters (presence, type, intensity) "based on an intra prediction direction of blocks adjacent to the current block" is a logical extension of adaptive filtering. For example, if adjacent blocks have a similar prediction direction, applying stronger filtering along that direction might be beneficial to reinforce continuity, as suggested by the patent. [Description, Second Embodiment, FIG. 7A] Conversely, if prediction directions are discontinuous, weaker or no filtering might be applied to avoid blurring essential details. [Description, Second Embodiment, FIG. 7B] Such adaptivity is a common optimization technique in video processing, and its application to the in-loop filtering of Claim 1 would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA aiming to achieve improved coding efficiency and subjective image quality. [Description, First Embodiment]