Invalidity dossier
US 6614845
Method and apparatus for differential macroblock coding for intra-frame data in video conferencing systems
Current assignee: RPX Corp
Added 9/23/2026, 2:06:44 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 6,614,845 B1
Title: Method and apparatus for differential macroblock coding for intra-frame data in video conferencing systems
Patent number / application: US 6,614,845 B1; Application US 08/941,785
Inventor: Faramarz Azadegan
Assignee of record (as listed in the source): Original assignee Verizon Laboratories Inc. (earlier GTE Laboratories Incorporated). The source also lists a current assignee of RPX Corp.
Key dates (as listed; the source labels priority date as an assumption): Priority date 1996-12-24; filing date 1997-09-30; publication/grant 2003-09-02. Legal status: Expired – Lifetime, expires 2019-06-27.
Purpose: The invention addresses data compression for coding video image signals, specifically coding a macroblock for intra-frame (I-frame) data in video conferencing systems. It aims to reduce spatial redundancy in intra-frame coding, improving compression efficiency and improving standard protocols such as H.263 and H.324 while ensuring forward compatibility.
Plain-language scope: The disclosed method receives multiple macroblocks, selects one, determines a difference between the selected ("coding") macroblock and at least one other ("reference") macroblock, and encodes the selected macroblock based on that difference; decoding reverses this using the difference. In one implementation, two components are added to the H.263 macroblock-layer protocol structure: a difference component indicating encoding of the coding macroblock, and a reference component indicating the reference macroblock's location. The source describes using H.324/H.263 structures, incorporating the March 1996 H.324 and H.263 recommendations by reference, and presents figures on efficiency gains. The excerpt notes claims including methods of data compression, coding and decoding, and corresponding storing, receiving, determining, encoding, and decoding components.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6614845/en
What the excerpt does not establish: The supplied text provides no verbatim claim language, no complete claim set, no detailed description of the comparison algorithm, no actual efficiency measurements, no prior-art discussion, and no independent verification of dates, status, or assignee accuracy (the source itself labels legal status and priority date as assumptions). It also does not establish litigation, ownership transfers, validity, or the content of omitted portions.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:52:32 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6614845. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.