Invalidity dossier
US 8964849
Added 9/23/2026, 9:31:40 AM
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 8,964,849 B2
Title: Multi-level significance maps for encoding and decoding
Patent number: US 8,964,849 B2
Application number: US 13/286,336
Publication (grant): 2015-02-24; earlier application publication US 2013/0107969 A1 on 2013-05-02
Priority/filing date: 2011-11-01
Inventors: Nguyen Nguyen, Tianying Ji, Dake He
Original assignee: BlackBerry Ltd; current assignee listed: Velos Media LLC
Status as listed: Active, with adjusted expiration 2032-09-20
Purpose and plain-language scope: The text indicates the patent concerns encoding and decoding of data using "multi-level significance maps," with recurring concepts of coefficients, significant flags, and groups of flags used to signal whether transform coefficients are significant. In plain terms, rather than signaling significance of every coefficient at a single level, the described approach organizes significance information into multiple levels or groups, so that significance of coefficients within a group can be conveyed through group-level and sub-level flags. This bears on how a video or image codec represents and compresses coefficient-position data during entropy coding.
However, the supplied excerpt contains no abstract, no detailed description, no claims, and no drawings text. The only substantive technical content available is the title and the "prior art keywords" list (coefficient, significant, group, flag, flags). Accordingly, the precise scope of the claims, the specific multi-level map structures, the encoder/decoder apparatus, any method steps, and the field/embodiments cannot be described here beyond the title's plain implication.
Ownership and proceedings: The excerpt records assignments (Slipstream Data Inc.; Research in Motion Limited; BlackBerry Limited; Velos Media, LLC), continuation-family members, and litigation/PTAB entries; per instructions, these are reported as listed only, without research or analysis.
What the excerpt does not establish: claim language or claim scope; technical implementation details; field of use; validity or enforceability; prior art; and any legal conclusion about status.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:54:13 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8964849. 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.