US 11805267

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 11805267, "Motion prediction in video coding," along with a plain-language overview of its independent claims:

US Patent 11805267: Motion prediction in video coding

• Title: Motion prediction in video coding
• Current Assignee: Nokia Technologies Oy.
• Inventors: Kemal Ugur, Jani Lainema, Antti Hallapuro.
• Filing Date: May 24, 2021.
• Issue Date: October 31, 2023.
• Abstract: Apparatuses, methods, and computer programs are provided for utilizing motion prediction in video coding. A block of pixels of a video representation encoded in a bitstream is read, and a type of the block is determined. If the determining indicates that the block is a block predicted by using two or more reference blocks, a first reference pixel location in a first reference block is determined and a second reference pixel location in a second reference block is determined. The first reference pixel location is used to obtain a first prediction. The first prediction has a second precision, which is higher than the first precision. The second reference pixel location is used to obtain a second prediction, which also has the second precision. The first prediction and the second prediction are combined to obtain a combined prediction; and the precision of the combined prediction is reduced to the first precision.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

The patent features several independent claims across different categories (method, apparatus, computer-readable storage medium, and a system with processor/memory). The core innovation across these claims centers on improving video coding efficiency by reducing rounding errors in multi-directional prediction, specifically by performing intermediate prediction calculations at a higher precision.

• Independent Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a method for video coding. It involves:

  1. Determining a block of pixels in a video, where these pixels have an initial (first) level of precision.
  2. Identifying the type of this block.
  3. If the block is predicted using two or more reference blocks (e.g., bi-predicted or multi-predicted), then:
     • Finding specific pixel locations in a first and second reference block.
     • Generating a first prediction from the first reference location at a higher (second) precision.
     • Generating a second prediction from the second reference location also at the higher (second) precision.
     • Combining these two higher-precision predictions.
     • Finally, reducing the precision of the combined prediction back to the initial (first) precision.

• Independent Claim 13 (Apparatus with Processor and Memory): This claim describes an apparatus (like a video codec) comprising a processor and a memory. The memory stores computer code that, when executed by the processor, causes the apparatus to perform the exact same steps as outlined in Independent Claim 1.

• Independent Claim 25 (Computer Readable Storage Medium): This claim covers a computer-readable storage medium (e.g., a flash drive, hard drive) with code stored on it. When this code is executed by a processor, it causes an apparatus to perform the identical method steps described in Independent Claim 1.

• Independent Claim 26 (Apparatus with Processor and Memory - Alternative Wording): Similar to Claim 13, this claim also covers an apparatus with a processor and memory. The memory contains code that, when executed, causes the apparatus to perform the same method steps as in Independent Claim 1. This appears to be a slightly reworded or alternative way to claim the apparatus aspect based on the method.

• Independent Claim 27 (Apparatus with Specific Components): This claim describes an apparatus using a component-based structure rather than purely functional steps:

  1. An input that determines a block of pixels with a first precision.
  2. A "determinator" that determines the block's type and, if it's predicted by two or more reference blocks, identifies first and second reference pixel locations.
  3. A first "predictor" that uses the first reference pixel location to generate a first prediction at a higher (second) precision.
  4. A second "predictor" that uses the second reference pixel location to generate a second prediction, also at the higher (second) precision.
  5. A "combiner" that combines these two higher-precision predictions.
  6. A "shifter" that decreases the precision of the combined prediction back to the first precision.

• Independent Claim 35 (Apparatus with Means-Plus-Function Language): This claim defines an apparatus using "means for" clauses, which are interpreted as covering the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. It includes:

  1. Means for determining a block of pixels with a first precision.
  2. Means for determining the block's type.
  3. Means for determining first and second reference pixel locations if the block is multi-predicted.
  4. Means for using the first reference pixel location to obtain a first prediction at a higher (second) precision.
  5. Means for using the second reference pixel location to obtain a second prediction at the higher (second) precision.
  6. Means for combining the first and second predictions to get a combined prediction.
  7. Means for decreasing the precision of the combined prediction to the first precision.

Note on Litigation:
As of the current date, US Patent 11805267 has been involved in litigation. An initial determination by an Administrative Law Judge at the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) found a violation of Section 337 concerning the importation of certain video-capable electronic devices by Amazon, based on the infringement of several Nokia patents, including US11805267. Specifically, Nokia has proven infringement of claims 7-9 and 25-27 of US11805267, while Amazon has proven the invalidity of claims 7, 25, and 26, but not claims 8, 9, or 27. This indicates that while some claims have been challenged, others remain valid and infringed. The Commission later determined to ratify prior actions and review the final initial determination in its entirety as of March 4, 2025, and subsequently granted a joint motion to terminate the investigation based on settlement as of April 23, 2025.

There is no authoritative information from the performed search indicating active dockets for patent 11805267 specifically at the CAFC in 2026. The search for CAFC 2026 dockets provided general information about accessing case information but no specific results for this patent number.

US patent 11805267, titled "Motion prediction in video coding," has been involved in litigation.

Here's a summary of the known litigation:

• Case: Investigation No. 337-TA-1380
  • Plaintiff(s): Nokia
  • Defendant(s): Amazon
  • Jurisdiction: United States International Trade Commission (USITC or ITC)
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but the initial determination was rendered in December 2024.
  • Outcome/Current Status: In December 2024, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a final initial determination (FID) finding that Amazon infringed four out of five Nokia multimedia patents, including US11805267. The ALJ recommended a U.S. import ban on Amazon streaming devices. Specifically for US11805267, Nokia proven infringement of claims 7-9 and 25-27, while Amazon proven invalidity of claims 7, 25, and 26. The public redacted version of the FID was released on January 8, 2025. Nokia is reportedly trying to prevail on the fifth patent during the review stage, while Amazon is contesting unfavorable parts of the decision.

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US patent 11805267. Both proceedings are now concluded: one was terminated due to settlement, and the other was denied institution on discretionary grounds. This indicates that while the patent owner faced challenges, the patent's claims have not been invalidated through PTAB proceedings, giving the patent a hardened defensive posture.

IPR2025-01375 — SNAP INC. et al. v. Nokia Technologies Oy

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-03
• Status: Terminated-Settled — The parties reached a settlement agreement, leading to the termination of the IPR proceeding.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly available from search results due to the settlement.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated as settled before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued due to the settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2026-02-13 due to a settlement between SNAP INC. et al. and Nokia Technologies Oy. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding concluded with a settlement, meaning the patent claims challenged by SNAP INC. et al. were not invalidated by the PTAB. For a defendant, this suggests the patent owner was able to resolve the dispute, potentially by licensing or other agreement, rather than having the claims adjudicated for invalidity. However, the claims themselves remain untested at the PTAB by this petitioner.

IPR2025-01154 — ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v. Nokia Technologies Oy

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-17
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The petition for IPR was denied institution by the Director of the USPTO on discretionary grounds.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results. During the period this petition was likely reviewed (after March 26, 2025), the USPTO adopted a bifurcated approach to institution decisions, where the Director first considers discretionary factors. After October 20, 2025, Director John Squires took personal control of all institution decisions, often issuing summary denials without detailed reasoning.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly available from search results.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2025-12-23 on discretionary grounds. The precise reasoning for this specific denial is not publicly available from search results, but in late 2025, the Director began denying petitions without detailed reasoning, often citing factors like "settled expectations" based on the age of the patent or petitioner delay, or workload management.
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued because institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was denied institution on 2025-12-23.
• Appeal: Institution decisions are generally not appealable under the AIA.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial means the PTAB did not reach the merits of the unpatentability challenge. This outcome is favorable to the patent owner, as it prevented a full trial on the challenged claims. For a defendant, this indicates that an IPR challenge might face similar discretionary hurdles, especially if the grounds for denial in this case (though not explicitly stated in public search results) involved factors like patent age or timing relative to parallel litigation. An IPR-based defense on the same grounds would likely be harder, but different prior art or arguments might still be viable.

Strategic summary

Neither of the two IPR proceedings resulted in the invalidation of any claims of US patent 11805267. IPR2025-01375 was terminated due to a settlement between the parties, leaving the challenged claims' patentability unadjudicated by the Board. IPR2025-01154 was denied institution on discretionary grounds, meaning the PTAB did not even consider the merits of the unpatentability arguments presented by the petitioner. Therefore, all claims of US patent 11805267 remain SUSTAINED or, more accurately, UNTESTED through a full PTAB trial process.

Regarding estoppel, since IPR2025-01375 settled before institution, there is no statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) against SNAP INC. et al. or its privies for any grounds that could have been raised. For IPR2025-01154, institution was denied. While an institution denial generally does not trigger statutory estoppel on all grounds that could have been raised, some evolving case law might impose a narrower form of estoppel on the specific grounds actually presented in the denied petition, preventing the petitioner (ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al.) from re-litigating those same grounds in district court. However, for a new defendant, all prior-art grounds remain theoretically available, provided they are not otherwise estopped by their own actions.

A pattern signal here is the discretionary denial in IPR2025-01154, which occurred around the time Director John Squires began personally denying a high percentage of IPR petitions, often without detailed reasoning, and after Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart introduced the "settled expectations" factor. This indicates a trend towards stricter discretionary denial at the PTAB, which could make future IPRs on this patent challenging to institute, especially if the patent is considered "old" or if there's parallel litigation.

Recommended next steps

• Since no claims of US11805267 have been invalidated by the PTAB, any defendant facing assertion of this patent should be aware that the claims have not been weakened by these specific proceedings.
• For IPR2025-01154, it would be beneficial to obtain the specific denial order (Paper number) to understand the precise discretionary grounds used by the Director, if publicly available. This information would be crucial for assessing the viability of any new IPR petition against this patent. Understanding the PTAB's reasoning for discretionary denials, especially those related to "settled expectations" or other procedural factors, is paramount for future IPR strategy.
• The settlement in IPR2025-01375 suggests that Nokia Technologies Oy is willing to resolve disputes outside of a full PTAB trial. This could imply a strong perceived value of the patent or a strategic decision to avoid the risks of a final written decision.

Inventors

• Kemal Ugur: Nokia Technologies Oy (at time of filing).
• Jani Lainema: Nokia Technologies Oy (at time of filing).
• Antti Hallapuro: Nokia Technologies Oy (at time of filing).

All inventors were employed by Nokia Technologies Oy, the original assignee, at the time of filing. There are no immediate patterns indicating an imminent departure or portfolio fire-sale from the provided information.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Nokia Technologies Oy.

Nokia Technologies Oy is a technology and licensing subsidiary of Nokia Corporation, focusing on patent licensing, brand licensing, and the development of new technologies, including those related to video coding standards. Nokia, as an overarching entity, ships a wide range of products embodying video coding claims, such as smartphones, network infrastructure, and other communication devices. Its primary line of business is telecommunications and technology. Nokia Technologies Oy is an operating entity.

Assignment timeline

• 2021-05-24 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-25 — Reel 056801/0047
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Ugur, Kemal; Lainema, Jani; Hallapuro, Antti
  • Assignee: Nokia Corporation
  • Correspondent: Blank Rome LLP (Attn: Patent Group), One Logan Square, 130 N. 18th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer of inventorship rights to the parent corporation.
• 2021-05-24 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-25 — Reel 056801/0050
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Nokia Corporation
  • Assignee: Nokia Technologies Oy
  • Correspondent: Blank Rome LLP (Attn: Patent Group), One Logan Square, 130 N. 18th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer from parent corporation to its technology and licensing subsidiary, Nokia Technologies Oy.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11805267
    2011 : Priority date Jan 7
    2021 : Inventors assigned to Nokia Corp
         : Nokia Corp assigned to Nokia Technologies Oy
    2023 : Patent issued
    2024 : ITC infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The transfers are between the inventors and Nokia Corporation, and then to Nokia Technologies Oy, all within the known Nokia corporate structure. Nokia Technologies Oy is an operating and licensing entity, not a shell for assertion only.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Nokia Technologies Oy is not recognized as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) in the conventional sense but rather as an operating company that actively licenses its extensive patent portfolio and enforces it when necessary.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Blank Rome LLP (Attn: Patent Group) is listed as the correspondent for both recorded assignments (Reel 056801/0047 and 056801/0050).
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are two transfers recorded on the same day, suggesting an internal, contemporaneous restructuring or clarification of ownership rather than a rapid, successive transfer through multiple entities.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The assignments occurred on 2021-05-24. The ITC infringement suit, Investigation No. 337-TA-1380, had its initial determination in December 2024, indicating the suit was filed well after the assignments.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. The assignors and assignees involved (inventors, Nokia Corporation, Nokia Technologies Oy) were not reported to be in bankruptcy at the time of these assignments.
7. Privateering — not present. The patent is held and asserted by Nokia Technologies Oy, which is a part of Nokia, an operating company. While Nokia does license its patents, the assertion appears to be direct by the operating entity or its licensing arm, not via a third-party NPE.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends with Nokia Technologies Oy, an asserting entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The patent is currently owned by Nokia Technologies Oy, the licensing arm of the operating company Nokia Corporation, following internal transfers from the inventors to Nokia Corporation and then to Nokia Technologies Oy (Reel 056801/0047 and 056801/0050). The ITC litigation involving Nokia as the plaintiff against Amazon confirms that Nokia Technologies Oy is actively asserting this patent as an operating company protecting its intellectual property.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US11805267

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11805267, I will utilize the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool, as it provides access to patents and patent application publications and is designed for enhanced access to prior art. I will search for patent 11805267 directly to access its cited references.

Once I have the list of cited prior art, I will analyze each reference to provide its full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description, and which claim(s) of US11805267 it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Since I cannot directly interact with a live USPTO database and extract a list of citations, I will instead rely on the information present within the provided patent text itself, which lists prior art keywords and often cites relevant patents in its "Description of the Related Art" or "Background" sections, as well as in the "References Cited" section, if available in the parsed text. However, the provided text snippets do not contain a "References Cited" section with a list of patent citations. The "Prior art keywords" section on Google Patents lists "prediction, precision, block, reference block, values," but these are general keywords and not specific patent citations.

Without direct access to the USPTO database or a "References Cited" section in the provided text, I cannot provide a definitive list of the most relevant prior art as typically found in a patent's examination history.

However, based on the abstract and description, the patent aims to reduce rounding errors in bi-directional and multi-directional prediction by maintaining higher precision during intermediate calculations. Any prior art that addresses motion prediction in video coding, particularly bi-directional or multi-directional prediction, and methods for handling precision or rounding errors in such predictions, would be highly relevant.

Given the information that Amazon proved the invalidity of claims 7, 25, and 26 of US11805267 in the ITC case (Investigation No. 337-TA-1380), but not claims 8, 9, or 27, this suggests that the prior art presented by Amazon was effective against claims 7, 25, and 26. To fully understand which prior art was used for this, one would need to review the full public redacted version of the Initial Determination from the ITC case, which is not available in the provided snippets.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 11805267 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art that would render the independent claims of US Patent 11805267 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) prior to the patent's effective filing date (priority date of January 7, 2011).

The Inventive Concept

The core inventive concept of US11805267, as articulated in its independent claims (Claims 1, 13, 25, 26, 27, and 35), is to reduce rounding errors in bi-directional or multi-directional motion prediction within video coding. This is achieved by maintaining the prediction signals (first and second predictions) at a "second precision" (a higher precision) during intermediate calculations and only reducing their precision to a "first precision" (the final output precision) after these higher-precision prediction signals have been combined. A stated benefit of this approach is the removal of the need to signal rounding direction in the bitstream.

Identified Prior Art References

1. H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard (ITU-T Rec. H.264, ISO/IEC 14496-10): This widely adopted video coding standard, published in 2003, predates the patent's priority date and is explicitly mentioned in the background of US11805267 as conventional technology. H.264/AVC teaches fundamental concepts in video coding, including:

   • Block-based coding and prediction types: It defines intra-coded (I), uni-predicted (P), and bi-predicted (B) pictures and blocks, and methods for determining block types.
   • Motion compensated prediction (MCP): It extensively describes how a prediction for a current block is formed using previously coded frames.
   • Fractional-pixel motion vector accuracy: H.264/AVC supports motion vectors with up to quarter-pixel accuracy, requiring interpolation filters (e.g., symmetric and separable 6-tap filters for half-pixel samples, and averaging for quarter-pixel samples).
   • Bi-directional prediction: The standard specifically utilizes bi-directional motion compensated prediction, where a prediction signal for a block may be formed by combining (e.g., averaging) two motion compensated prediction blocks. The patent's background describes how such averaging operations in conventional codecs (like H.264/AVC) may include "up or down rounding, which may introduce rounding errors." It also mentions that "rounding error accumulation may be removed or decreased by signalling whether rounding up or rounding down have been used when the two prediction signals have been combined for each frame."

2. General Principles of Digital Signal Processing (DSP): Prior to 2011, it was well-established and generally known in the field of digital signal processing that maintaining a higher precision (i.e., more bits) for intermediate calculations in a processing chain helps to mitigate the accumulation of quantization, truncation, or rounding errors. This higher precision is then reduced to the desired output precision only at the final stage of calculation. This principle is fundamental to preserving accuracy in numerical computations, particularly in filtering, summation, and other arithmetic operations performed on sampled data.

Obviousness Argument

A POSITA in the field of video coding, prior to January 7, 2011, would have been acutely aware of the techniques described in the H.264/AVC standard. They would have been familiar with its use of bi-directional prediction, fractional-pixel interpolation, and the problem of rounding errors that could degrade coding efficiency, especially when combining prediction signals. The patent itself explicitly highlights this problem: "The accumulation of rounding errors in bi-directional prediction may cause degradation in coding efficiency." Furthermore, the existing solutions described in the patent's background, such as signaling rounding direction, were known to "increase somewhat the complexity as two separate code branches need to be written for bi-directional averaging."

Given these known problems and complexities, a POSITA would have been motivated to find improved methods for reducing rounding errors in multi-directional prediction while also simplifying the coding process (e.g., by avoiding the need to signal rounding direction).

The combination that renders the claims of US11805267 obvious would be:

• H.264/AVC (Reference 1) teaching: The overall framework of block-based video coding, bi-directional prediction, determination of block types, identification of reference pixel locations using motion vectors, and the process of obtaining first and second predictions via interpolation filters (e.g., 6-tap filters). H.264/AVC also teaches the conventional practice of combining these predictions and that rounding errors accumulate when precision is reduced too early.
• General DSP principles (Reference 2) teaching: The widely known engineering principle of performing intermediate numerical calculations at a higher precision to minimize the accumulation of errors before a final downscaling to the target precision.

Motivation for Combination:

A POSITA, recognizing the problem of accumulated rounding errors in H.264/AVC's bi-directional prediction (as described in the background of US11805267) and the complexity introduced by managing explicit rounding directions, would have been motivated to apply the well-known DSP principle of maintaining higher intermediate precision. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to adapt the H.264/AVC bi-prediction process by:

1. Performing the interpolation and initial prediction signal generation (e.g., P1 and P2 in FIG. 11) using a higher bit-depth (second precision) to ensure greater accuracy, consistent with general DSP best practices for multi-stage calculations.
2. Delaying the final precision reduction (to the first precision) until after the individual, higher-precision prediction signals have been combined. This directly addresses the problem of error accumulation that occurs when individual prediction signals are rounded prematurely (as depicted in FIG. 9's conventional approach).

By applying this known DSP technique to the H.264/AVC bi-prediction scheme, the POSITA would anticipate achieving the benefits of reduced rounding errors and, consequently, improved coding efficiency, as well as the simplification of the coding process by eliminating the need to signal rounding direction. The invention's solution is thus a straightforward application of a known principle to a known problem in a known system, yielding predictable results.