Invalidity dossier
US 5719986
Video signal encoding method
Current assignee: Sony Corp
Added 9/23/2026, 2:20:30 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
US5719986A — Video Signal Encoding Method
Patent overview
- Title: Video signal encoding method
- Patent number: US5719986A
- Application number: US08/641,491
- Inventors: Motoki Kato; Takashi Kojima
- Assignee: Sony Corporation (original assignee; reassignment recorded 1996-09-17)
- Priority date: 1995-05-02 (identified in the source as an assumption)
- Filing date: 1996-05-01
- Publication/grant date: 1998-02-17
- Legal status (as listed): Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2016-05-01
Purpose and plain-language scope
According to the supplied text, the patent concerns encoding a video signal, with emphasis on how code amount (compressed data volume) is handled relative to a transmission buffer. The classifications indicate adaptive coding, selection between spatial and temporal predictive coding, quantization, transform coding combined with predictive coding, and picture/frame/field and group-of-pictures (GOP) as coding units. Prior-art keywords listed are "encoding," "picture," "information," "set time," and "time interval."
Put simply, the claims appear directed to a method of compressing video in which the encoder adapts its coding based on signal properties and manages output data rate so the buffer does not overflow or underflow—monitoring actual compressed data size before deciding storage at the transmission buffer.
Source
https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5719986](/patent/US5719986)/en
What the excerpt does not establish
The supplied excerpt contains no claim language, no detailed description, no drawings, and no cited prior-art references. It also does not establish the specific encoding steps, the exact buffer-control algorithm, or the meaning of "set time" and "time interval" as used in the specification. The priority date, legal status, and assignee are expressly noted in the source as assumptions or as not legally analyzed. No litigation, ownership-transfer, validity, or prior-art conclusions are drawn here.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:52:22 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5719986. 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.