Sisvel patent pools formed for VP9 and AV1

[hajj_3]

bad news, it looks like vp9 and av1 may violate some patents, as a result patent pools have been launched for vp9 and av1:

A list of the patents in the patent pools are not available yet.

There are no costs for content distributors thankfully.

http://sisvel.com/licensing-programs/audio-and-video-coding-decoding/video-coding-platform/introduction
http://sisvel.com/news-events/news/sisvel-announces-the-launch-of-its-video-coding-licensing-platform
https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/Online-Video-News/Sisvel-Launches-Patent-Pools-for-VP9-and-AV1-130840.aspx
https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/Online-Video-News/No-Content-Royalties-in-Sisvel-VP9-AV1-Patent-Pools-130849.aspx

[nevcairiel]

This is just a patent troll company. They are not giving out any tangible information whatsoever, like the patents they claim are relevant, or even a number of patents. Don't give them any attention.

[hajj_3]

This is just a patent troll company. They are not giving out any tangible information whatsoever, like the patents they claim are relevant, or even a number of patents. Don't give them any attention.

It doesn't look like that, JVCKENWOOD, Phillips, Toshiba and others are in this patent pool. They said in one of the links that they will publish a list of their patents.

[Quikee]

This was expected that somebody will try to assert their patents against AV1, if not for other reason just to try to cover AV1 in uncertainty. I'm sure these patents aren't new so I'm sure AOM is already aware of them an has some sort of an answer. Let's see what will happen next..

[utack]

Sisvel CEO confirmed that at the moment they have no clue which patents they manage are applicable (at 15:56):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqR63-Xwv6o

[dapperdan]

Reminds me of the story about when IBM told Sun they infringed some patents and Sun engineers pointed out they didn't infringe:

OK, maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"

[benwaggoner]

Yet another patent pool that doesn't offer any information to allow evaluation of their IP claims or their license. Timed to coincide with NAB I presume. This is profoundly unhelpful.

[birdie]

So, has HEVC adoption stalled and they are resorting to the lowest tactics in order to sow FUD in regard to AV1 and open a litigation against Google? Almost expected.

[benwaggoner]

So, has HEVC adoption stalled and they are resorting to the lowest tactics in order to sow FUD in regard to AV1 and open a litigation against Google? Almost expected.
I'm not aware of any indication that Sisvel is part of any "they" involved with HEVC. Is there some?

[z_thunder]

Hi Ben, hi all,
scope of this post is try and clarify some of the issues that are being debated in this thread.
My name is Giovanni Ballocca and I’m currently with Sisvel Technology (just to be clear on my position).
I can understand your doubts springing from the current lack of a patent list, but there’s a reason behind that I’m willing to explain.
We’ve been working for some months now to the creation of this licensing program having in mind that the technologies covered, even though not international standards, have been designed in the perspective of a global outreach.
We have, therefore, decided to use the same level of care that we normally apply when dealing with any other standard covered technology (Sisvel has been running licensing program on technologies standardized by the DVB and other SDOs for a long time).
This typically requires a facilitation phase to aggregate a critical mass of IP that ensures the program is not technically irrelevant; appropriate royalty determination; public patent call to open the process to all the interested actors; third party evaluation of the patents (it cannot be us to decide whether or not a patent is necessary to practice a given specification).
As you might have probably heard from the news, we just opened the patent call (other patent owners have shown a definite interest in joining the program) and are in the third party evaluation phase. Only the patent evaluated necessary to perform the specs will be published in the list and this will happen by the end of Q2 2019.
No licensing discussions will be started before the list of patents is made available.
Regarding the specific date for the launch of the program, there is no specific intention to target the NAB or any other event: if you consider the calendar of tradeshows in the CE and ICT space with global relevance it’s almost impossible to announce anything without the risk to collide with some external event. By the way, being involved in other broadcast related business, we’ll be present at the NAB and available chats and clarifications if needed.
I’ll be happy to provide further clarifications where possible.
G.

[dapperdan]

Seems slightly odd to have already published the price they intend to charge but they're not actually figured if they have something to offer in exchange. You'd think the price would in some way depend on the quality and quantity of IP being licensed, cost to work around etc

[Gser]

Seems slightly odd to have already published the price they intend to charge but they're not actually figured if they have something to offer in exchange. You'd think the price would in some way depend on the quality and quantity of IP being licensed, cost to work around etc

Ah I see you are new. Patent trolls use completely arbitrary fantasy numbers to justify prices, they use these inflated prices to attract costumers i.e. more members in the patent pool. Essentially they are running a scam. IF they are smart scammers they ask for prices that they know people can pay. They get no money otherwise, pricing is usually based like this. If they have in any way a legimate case, they will settle out of court for a percentage of profits. If the case ends up in court and it is not a paid shill of the copyright troll they will ask for examples of similar cases and base judgement on that.

[mandarinka]

This seems like a common thing with in the more "religious" following of open source and related things that something happens, but you guys misuse the "patent troll" term a lot.

Patent trolling is something completely different. Patent troll has a few patents, lies in wait till the technology is broadly deployed in for-revenue shipping devices, then attacks a specific rich company and demands large sums for those specific patents at court. The payouts are large if successful.

This is plain IP pool - patent trolls don't offer mild/fair per-product fees to everyone, they only extort you at court when they target you. Note also how this is formed and made clear early in AV1 life, before any phone, standalone media player or processor/GPU could ship with AV1 support - patent troll would wait for a moment when a lot of devices would be out in the wild and make base for large damage claims. If they were patent troll, they would just foil themselves, because patent troll only reveals its hand after patent X ships in a lot of devices and products and company Y makes a lot of money on it, so that troll can ask court to grant it a share of that revenue. Just apply logic ffs.

What is so hard in seeing that some companies that didn't want to contribute to AV1/AOM/Google for free but still do video research have patented their results and see them being used/adapted in AV1, and thus they try to get a compensation?

Inb4 you believe that the MPEG-LA settlement with Google over VP8/VP9 was completely bogus and just an extortion that Google decided to pay away despite it being totally dishonest and nono of the patents were valid. People, chill and try to look at these things without the "free things are supreme, infallible and perfect, and everybody else never invents anything and only trolls and runs conspiracies against the true religion blah blah etc" bias.

Sorry for ranting and touching people's bubbles, but sometimes you have to go against popular opinions when they are incorrect and unfair. I like open source and open source media software a lot myself but we need to be honest.

[iwod]

This seems like a common thing with in the more "religious" following of open source and related things that something happens, but you guys misuse the "patent troll" term a lot.

Patent trolling is something completely different. Patent troll has a few patents, lies in wait till the technology is broadly deployed in for-revenue shipping devices, then attacks a specific rich company and demands large sums for those specific patents at court. The payouts are large if successful.

This is plain IP pool - patent trolls don't offer mild/fair per-product fees to everyone, they only extort you at court when they target you. Note also how this is formed and made clear early in AV1 life, before any phone, standalone media player or processor/GPU could ship with AV1 support - patent troll would wait for a moment when a lot of devices would be out in the wild and make base for large damage claims. If they were patent troll, they would just foil themselves, because patent troll only reveals its hand after patent X ships in a lot of devices and products and company Y makes a lot of money on it, so that troll can ask court to grant it a share of that revenue. Just apply logic ffs.

What is so hard in seeing that some companies that didn't want to contribute to AV1/AOM/Google for free but still do video research have patented their results and see them being used/adapted in AV1, and thus they try to get a compensation?

Inb4 you believe that the MPEG-LA settlement with Google over VP8/VP9 was completely bogus and just an extortion that Google decided to pay away despite it being totally dishonest and nono of the patents were valid. People, chill and try to look at these things without the "free things are supreme, infallible and perfect, and everybody else never invents anything and only trolls and runs conspiracies against the true religion blah blah etc" bias.

Sorry for ranting and touching people's bubbles, but sometimes you have to go against popular opinions when they are incorrect and unfair. I like open source and open source media software a lot myself but we need to be honest.

I think you did it much better than what I could do and I don't consider any of the above "ranting". Merely pointing out a few facts and truth.

I am also glad to see more people are finally speaking out. ( May be out of intense frustration )

[dapperdan]

Google and the rest of AOM don't want to use their IP. If it was easy to know what they claimed ownership of, they would have avoided it. They've already spent literally millions on trying to avoid using unlicensed IP by accident

Changing AV1 now has a definite monetary cost. If it didn't, there would be no point announcing the patents because Google would just remove them. So they are by your own idiosyncratic definition, patent trolls. Google et all are now faced with trading off the cost of fighting or settling this against the cost to redo the standard to work around the patents.

Video codec patents are broken. People at the top of MPEG seems to have accepted this, so it's hardly just the crazy hippies holding this view. It's people actual job to write vague patents, the vaguer the patent the better they are doing their job and the more likely their company will make money. This is not something to celebrate.

[mandarinka]

Seriously, do you want everybody in the world to check what Google is doing, do IPR analysis on everything for them at your own expense and then warn them for free?
Before such tools are finalised, so you might end up analysing an experiment that will just get dropped for unrelated reasons? (It also doesn't help both VP9 and AV1 were relatively rushed through development.) If that is anybody's due dilligence, definitely not not of an outsider IP owner. Again, try to look at it without pro-free bias.

[dapperdan]

No, I want a functional IP system where you won't accidentally use someone's IP if you don't intend to and the people given 20 years of legal monopoly have to provide some clarity about what they want protected in exchange for that benefit.

Mozilla, Xiph etc. are quite happy to avoid IP that's not available under terms they can accept. Apparently it's impossible for them to do so with any certainty under the current system since there's so many vague patents.

If a patent isn't clear enough for Google's army of lawyers to find and avoid it then it's not clear enough to be worth legal protection.

[mandarinka]

I'm not sure it's as clear-cut. For example, the alt-ref thing in VP9/AV1 is really a copy of b-frame mechanism that is designed in a roundabout way to not look totally like b-frames, at a glance. Is that an example of "quite happy to avoid IP that's not available under terms they can accept" in a good sense? Sounds more like use the idea but dodge the responsibility to me, but well, maybe they changed enough details to get away with it.
As for the unclearness - it's perfectly possible the patents just weren't discovered or they weren't careful enough in trying to stay clear. I don't think it's a responsibility of patent holder to reach out to everybody in the world to informa them about it, that's pretty much not viable after all.
Also you call a video compression patent a monopoly and paint is as some injustice. But look at it from the inventor's point of view. They invested money and work. They are probably willing to offer it to multiple parties and not having a monopoly. But Google/AOM will only accept it for free. How can you think that refusing to grant the technology to them in such a situation is unjust? AOM's insistence of being royalty free is their choice, they have no right to push that onto IP holders that aren't okay with that. It's normal to want to be compensated for your property/work.

I think we are starting to hijack this thread though, so better stop this debate (which has been here over and over in the past).

[xiphmont]

This seems like a common thing with in the more "religious" following of open source and related things that something happens, but you guys misuse the "patent troll" term a lot.

In this case, I respectfully disagree. Basing your standard business practice around abusing patent hold-up is the very definition of a patent troll. There are ways to make it more egregious; a few are found here though certainly not all. Regardless, Sisvel is trolling. They don't have to, they didn't have to, but they are.

[mandarinka]

"They didn't have to." (Or let me paraphrase it, you seem to be suggesting they "shouldn't be doing this".)

If you say that to somebody who might have a legitimate claim to the IP and your reason in the end is that you are the one that has to pay, don't you think that is rather hypocritical and self-centered?
You aren't even impartial here as AOM member/AV1 creator but I don't think you would be in position to tell them that even if you were. So really, trying to paint this position with moral colors, I strongly think that is dishonest and biased, even if you probably don't see that.

[nevcairiel]

If you say that to somebody who might have a legitimate claim to the IP

But they stated themselves that they don't even know yet what patents are applicable. That means there could also be none. So they are charging money before they even know if they have a case to do so. How is that good practice, or not trolling?

[mandarinka]

But they stated themselves that they don't even know yet what patents are applicable. That means there could also be none.

Eh, I don't think that is quite correct. The list is not published/finalised, so it's probably a case of the usual business communication "we don't commit to anything yet". There are four major companies quoted as backers in their press release, so it is safe to assume that their IP for example will land there.
They say the list will be published when the call for other pool members ends...

[bstrobl]

VP9 has already existed for several years. Seems kind of convenient for them to pop up less than a year after AV1s introduction, while covering VP9 in their terms as well. If it just covered AV1 it may not seem that out of place but at this stage they have had enough time, especially since VP9 already had other patent pools pop up to try to claim their rights.

[soresu]

AV1 was openly developed, with all tools expressed in the specification.

The standardisation process towards bit sream freeze was telegraphed well in advance for any interested patent parties to have found applicable patents and demanded compensation or withdrawl.
For this consortium to have waited until software and hardware was well into development implies a definitive desire to increase the pressure on AOMedia contributors in order to defray the cost of said software and hardware development.

I think it does bare in mind remembering that not only Google was supposed to be contributing legal protection to AV1 by reviewing patent IP, there were other significant parties involved like Cisco and Microsoft.
Wasnt ANS left out of AV1 because of precisely this problem?

[soresu]

I guess at least there is no small corporate backing behind AOMedia to provide legal assistance here, the founding members alone can contribute a very significant defence if needed, and I would assume their own IP review pre bit stream freeze was probably significant enough to address any less than iron clad attempt to shake them down.

[Quikee]

Wasn't ANS left out of AV1 because of precisely this problem?

No.. it was left out because it wasn't a good fit for hardware. But Google filed a patent for "ANS in video compression", which is what pissed people of.

[utack]

https://aomedia.org/the-alliance-for-open-media-statement/

[mandarinka]

Wasnt ANS left out of AV1 because of precisely this problem?
I don't think so. What I heard is that the guy behind it wanted to contribute it, but actually, Google at the same time he was in the AV1 development discussions with them, they tried to patent his idea for themselves behind his back (like, wtf?!). I'm not sure if he even succeeded at preventing that, but if the snafu kept ANS out, it was not the inventor's fault.

[dapperdan]

https://xiphmont.dreamwidth.org/84214.html

Xiphmont's post about the ANS patent thing has all the nuance that gets lost in the retelling of this story.

[soresu]

Interesting read about the performance claims not adding up, I got the initial impression that it was some big advance in efficiency over CABAC with less complexity.

As you say it pays to read up on these things, and yes I always did get Monty's impression that Google's patent filing was specifically a pre-emptive protection against patent trolling over AV1, as indeed alot of AOMedia's mandate was during AV1s initial development.

[mandarinka]

https://xiphmont.dreamwidth.org/84214.html

Xiphmont's post about the ANS patent thing has all the nuance that gets lost in the retelling of this story.

For saying how he doesn't want to defend Google he sure seems to. It baffled me a bit when he basically addressed the whole matter by telling Duda to shut up go smoke cannabis instead. Maybe it's the classical case of poor joke that wasn't really meant to offend but was too dumb, but well... it involuntarily kind of started shifting my impression of the guy as I read that.

Also I think that the compression efficiency or usefulness of the algorithm has zero importance in the matter of Google's patenting attempt at all, so why bring it up.

[schweinsz]

I'm not sure it's as clear-cut. For example, the alt-ref thing in VP9/AV1 is really a copy of b-frame mechanism that is designed in a roundabout way to not look totally like b-frames, at a glance. Is that an example of "quite happy to avoid IP that's not available under terms they can accept" in a good sense? Sounds more like use the idea but dodge the responsibility to me, but well, maybe they changed enough details to get away with it.
As for the unclearness - it's perfectly possible the patents just weren't discovered or they weren't careful enough in trying to stay clear. I don't think it's a responsibility of patent holder to reach out to everybody in the world to informa them about it, that's pretty much not viable after all.
Also you call a video compression patent a monopoly and paint is as some injustice. But look at it from the inventor's point of view. They invested money and work. They are probably willing to offer it to multiple parties and not having a monopoly. But Google/AOM will only accept it for free. How can you think that refusing to grant the technology to them in such a situation is unjust? AOM's insistence of being royalty free is their choice, they have no right to push that onto IP holders that aren't okay with that. It's normal to want to be compensated for your property/work.

I think we are starting to hijack this thread though, so better stop this debate (which has been here over and over in the past).
The b-frame is invented more 30 years ago, while the multiple references and the multiple hypothesis inter prediction are invented more than 20 years ago. To the best of my knowledge, the hierarchical b coding structure is invented more than 24 years ago.

[hajj_3]

HEVC patent pool news: https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/Online-Video-News/Balance-of-Power-Shifts-Among-HEVC-Patent-Pools-136123.aspx

Also 'unifiedpatents' has now challenged a total of 42% of Velos Media patent pool's h265 patents: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2020/1/7/another-velos-media-patent-challenged-as-likely-unpatentable

[hajj_3]

Sisvel has published a list of their patents.

List of VP9 patents: https://www.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platform/PatentList_VP9.pdf
List of AV1 patents: https://www.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platform/PatentList_AV1.pdf

[hajj_3]

2 companies have now licenced sisvel's patents: https://www.sisvel.com/news-events/news/sisvel-announces-the-first-licensees-of-its-video-coding-licensing-platform

[benwaggoner]

2 companies have now licenced sisvel's patents: https://www.sisvel.com/news-events/news/sisvel-announces-the-first-licensees-of-its-video-coding-licensing-platform
I note that Mitsubishi Electric is the original holder of all the Xylene S.A. patents asserted in the docs, which are a good chunk of them.

I don't recall having heard about Tremmen Tecnologica. Their site is Spanish only and they don't have a Wikipedia entry even.

[hajj_3]

Interdigital has filed a lawsuit against Lenovo regarding VP9 & AV1 patent infringement: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/15358454

These are the patent numbers and anticipated expiration dates (according to google patents):

US10,250,877 - 2035-05-22
US8,674,859 - 2030-06-22
US9,674,556 - 2027-10-25
US9,173,054 - 2029-12-22
US8,737,933 - 2029-12-22

[Zarxrax]

From: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigati...ments/15358454
The ’877 Patent is entitled “Method and Device for Coding an Image Block,
Corresponding Decoding Method and Decoding Device” and issued on April 2, 2019, to
inventors Philippe Bordes, Pierre Andrivon, and Philippe Salmon.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1
On 25 June 2018, a validated version 1.0.0 of the specification was released.

Sounds legit.

[rwill]

'Issued' does not equal 'Filed' Mr. Gump.

[Avclover]

Interestingly, a new patent pool called Avanci video announced last week that they will ask video streaming operators to take a license for AV1 among other modern day codecs. 25 licensors are listed...

https://www.avanci.com/video/

[hajj_3]

Interestingly, a new patent pool called Avanci video announced last week that they will ask video streaming operators to take a license for AV1 among other modern day codecs. 25 licensors are listed...

https://www.avanci.com/video/

they haven't listed their patents yet or how much they are charging. It is annoying that they are trying to charge for streaming.

[Avclover]

I understood, new Avanci programs first find the suitable rates in initial discussion with licensees and (unlike the late Velos pool) publish them when first agreements are signed.

[hajj_3]

nokia has filed lots of lawsuits against Amazon and HP in various countries about video codec patents and streaming patents: https://www.nokia.com/blog/nokia-seeks-compensation-for-amazons-use-of-our-patented-multimedia-inventions/

nokia vs amazon u.s lawsuit document: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67928543/1/nokia-technologies-oy-v-amazoncom-inc/
nokia vs hp u.s lawsuit document: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67928650/1/nokia-technologies-oy-v-hp-inc/

patents nokia is suing hp over and their expiry dates as nokia listed in the court filing:

US7,532,808 - 2025-12-11 -h264
US8,204,134 - 2028-01-21 -h264
US7,724,818 - 2026-05-03 -h264+h265
US10,536,714 - 2032-11-01 -h265
US11,805,267 - 2032-01-06 -h265
US8,077,991 - 2030-10-12 -h265
US8,050,321 - 2027-05-19 -h264+h265
US6,950,469 - expired on 2023-08-06 -h264
US7,280,599 - expired on 2022-05-14 -h264
US8,036,273 - expired on 2021-09-17 -h264

patents nokia is suing amazon over, nokia did not list the expiration dates in this lawsuit therefore i am getting them off google patents:

US7,532,808 - 2025-12-11? -h264
US8,050,321 - 2027-05-19? -h264+h265?
US7,724,818 - 2026-05-03? -h264+h265?
US6,950,469 - expired 2023-08-06?
US7,280,599 - expired 2022-05-14?
US8,036,273 - expired 2021-09-17?
US6,856,701 - expired 2021-11-27?
US9,800,891 - expired 2021-01-19?
US6,968,005 - expired 2023-01-19?
US8,144,764 - expired 2024-10-15? -h264
US8,175,148 - 2026-12-03? -h264+h265?
US8,077,991 - 2030-10-12? -h265
US9,571,833 - 2034-10-13? -h265
US11,805,267 - 2032-01-06? -h265
US9,390,137 - 2033-08-01?

nokia is not a part of the via-la licensing for H264 (formerly known as mpeg-la) therefore none of these patents are listed in the via-la licensing list of H264 patents. I haven't checked for other codecs.

[oibaf]

Here https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights it looks like many VP9/AV1 (as well as HEVC and other codecs) are being challenged / revoked / invalidated, here are some related posts:

https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/8/25/gevc-patent-in-sisvel-av1-pool-appears-not-essential
https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/7/12/gevc-video-codec-patent-japanese-opposition-success
https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/7/12/kaist-etri-av1hevc-patent-patent-japanese-opposition-success
https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/7/7/interdigital-av1vp9-patent-japanese-opposition-success
https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/7/7/two-xylene-jp-patents-revoked-in-japan
https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/6/30/etri-video-codec-patent-reexam-granted
https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/6/15/interdigital-sisvels-av1-pool-us-9675556
https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/6/16/interdigital-video-codec-patent-reexam-granted
https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/6/15/interdigital-sisvels-av1-pool-us-9227243
https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/5/23/interdigital-hybrid-coding-patent-challenged-in-reexam
https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/4/17/ip-bridge-patent-confirmed-invalid


Note however, that some of the invalidated patents still appears on SISVEL AV1 patents. For example U.S. Patent 7,515,635 was invalidated (April 2023) according to https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights?offset=1682606261693 , however it is still listed in https://www.sisvel.com/xlin7ipl485u/5VKBBH3LSEwAyT151R2j3E/82fc563e7d116627d61083d8c249daaa/PatentList_AV1.pdf (dated September 2023)

[hajj_3]

Here is a list of all the active AV1 patents in the sisvel patent pool for the EU and their expiration dates, 11 out of 24 of them are currently being challenged in court:

EP1590964 - 2023-12-16
EP1611740 - 2024-02-24
EP1627360 - 2024-03-30 - court
EP3862973 - 2024-03-30 - court
EP1636987 - 2024-06-03
EP1781042 - 2025-08-16
EP1982524 - 2026-12-22 - court
EP2950543 - 2026-12-22 - court
EP1972156 - 2027-01-12
EP2255537 - 2029-02-20
EP2279620 - 2029-04-07
EP2359601 - 2029-10-20
EP2988500 - 2030-03-16 - court
EP2443835 - 2030-06-17 - court
EP2571269 - 2031-05-12 - court
EP3119091 - 2031-05-12 - court
EP3128755 - 2031-05-12 - court
EP2608540 - 2031-08-17
EP2627085 - 2031-10-04 - court
EP2996334 - 2031-12-21
EP2656507 - 2031-12-21
EP3595281 - 2032-05-17
EP2721819 - 2032-06-18 - court
EP2907306 - 2033-10-14

[hajj_3]

Note however, that some of the invalidated patents still appears on SISVEL AV1 patents. For example U.S. Patent 7,515,635 was invalidated (April 2023) according to https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights?offset=1682606261693 , however it is still listed in https://www.sisvel.com/xlin7ipl485u/5VKBBH3LSEwAyT151R2j3E/82fc563e7d116627d61083d8c249daaa/PatentList_AV1.pdf (dated September 2023)

That patent is being appealed according to google patents: "2023-06-30 US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit".

[oibaf]

Here is a similar list (active EU patents, with their expected expiration dates) for the Sisvel VP9 patent pool, updated as of November 10, 2023 (https://www.sisvel.com/xlin7ipl485u/6OckyYnH49V6byT7dW7YsF/019ee9f0f495dc57b5eaa7b42720b867/PatentList_VP9.pdf):

2025-08-16: EP1781042 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1781042B1/de)
2030-06-17: EP2443835 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2443835A1/de) - court
2031-05-12: EP2571269 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2571269B1/de) - court
2031-05-12: EP3119091 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3119091B1/de) - court
2031-05-12: EP3128755 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3128755B1/de) - court
2031-08-17: EP2608540 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2608540B1/de) - on November 2023, the European Patent Office announced the revocation (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/11/27/ideahub-former-etri-hevc-patent-revoked-in-epo) of all claims of EP3402195 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3402195B1/de) which is in the same family of EP2608540 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/EP-3402195-B1).

[oibaf]

Ideahub (former ETRI) HEVC Patent Revoked in EPO (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/11/27/ideahub-former-etri-hevc-patent-revoked-in-epo) - On November 22, 2023, the European Patent Office announced the revocation of all claims of EP 3402195. The EP ‘195 patent is currently owned by Ideahub Inc. but was previously owned by the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI). [...]

According to this (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/EP-3402195-B1) the EP 3402195 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3402195B1/de) patent is in the same family of EP 2608540 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2608540B1/de), which is listed in Sisvel patent pool for both AV1 and VP9 (and the farthest patent for VP9).

[benwaggoner]

It is emotionally satisfying to see all these low quality patents used parasitically dropping like flies. Unified Patents does heroic work for us all.

[oibaf]

BTW, these VP9 European patents were in Sisvel 2023-10-19 list, but were removed in their 2023-11-10 list (https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1993936#post1993936):


2030-06-29: EP2449782 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2449782B1/de)
2030-06-29: EP3288268 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3288268B1/de)
2030-08-11: EP2465265 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2465265B1/de)
2031-06-07: EP2719182 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2719182A1/de)