Invalidity dossier
US 7280599
Method for sub-pixel value interpolation
Current assignee: Nokia Technologies Oy
Added 9/21/2026, 1:04:48 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-v4-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US 7,280,599 B2
Title: Method for sub-pixel value interpolation
Patent number: US 7,280,599 B2
Application: US 11/090,717; filed 2005-03-25
Priority date: 2001-09-17
Grant/publication date: 2007-10-09
Inventors: Marta Karczewicz; Antti Olli Hallapuro
Original assignee: Nokia Inc (later recorded as Nokia Corporation, then Nokia Technologies Oy)
Status per source: Expired – Lifetime, adjusted expiration 2022-05-14
Classifications: H04N19/523 (motion estimation/compensation with sub-pixel accuracy); H04N19/59; H04N19/80; G06T3/4007; among others.
Purpose and plain-language scope: The patent concerns a method for sub-pixel value interpolation in encoding and decoding of data, particularly digital video. The background explains that consecutive video frames tend to be similar and contain considerable redundant information, so efficient coding matters. Frames are arrays of pixels; colour is often represented using a YUV model, where luminance (Y) captures brightness and chrominance (U, V) captures colour. Because the human visual system is more sensitive to intensity than colour, chrominance is commonly spatially sub-sampled; the excerpt describes a 16×16 luminance block paired with two 8×8 chrominance blocks—a "macroblock." Sub-pixel interpolation relates to generating pixel values at positions between actual sample positions, which the classification ties to motion estimation and compensation with sub-pixel accuracy (H04N19/523). The prior-art keywords listed are "sub," "pixel," "equal," "ordinates," and "pixels."
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7280599/en
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not include the claims, full detailed description, or drawings. It therefore does not establish the precise interpolation method claimed, the specific filter/weighting operations, or the exact limitations of any claim. The excerpt also does not present any prior art references beyond keyword tags, and no validity, infringement, or litigation conclusions should be drawn from it. Family members (e.g., US20050220353A1, US8036273B2) are noted in the source but their contents are not supplied here.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:00:58 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7280599. 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.