Finding Potential AV1 Patent Sellers Out of 2,500 Patent Families

A video codec technology company wanted to acquire the right AV1 patents before the landscape hardened and valuable positions became difficult or expensive to obtain.

HEVC had shown how fragmented patent ownership could turn a straightforward licensing exercise into years of overlapping negotiations and uncertain royalty exposure. As AV1 adoption scaled and licensing pools began forming around the standard, the client wanted to move early rather than face similar ownership complexity as the industry moved toward AV2.

The client did not need another landscape overview. Among more than 200 organizations holding AV1-relevant patents, it needed to identify which portfolios were both strategically valuable and realistically obtainable before committing acquisition budget and legal effort. GreyB helped convert roughly 2,500 patent families across more than 200 assignees into a credible shortlist of around 15 to 20 potential sellers.

2,500 Patent Families Were Evaluated Through a Multi-Layer Framework

The study followed three phases:

1. Scope and dataset creation
2. Assignee evaluation
3. Convergence analysis to produce the final shortlist

The team structured AV1 coding tools into a three-level technical taxonomy. It moved from 12 broad functional domains to more than 270 granular coding mechanisms.

A concept-driven search strategy combined keywords with CPC and IPC classifications to extract the relevant patent set. This structured patent acquisition strategy created a consistent analytical boundary for evaluating the portfolios.

Claim-Level Analysis Separated AV1 Patents From Adjacent-Codec Assets

Before AV1’s bitstream froze, codec patents were routinely drafted using established H.26x and ITU-T terminology, regardless of the underlying technology.

Because this terminology did not map cleanly onto AV1’s toolset, relevance had to be confirmed at the claim level rather than through keyword matching.

Patents whose first independent claims were specific to adjacent standards, such as HEVC or VVC, were excluded. Broader claims applicable across codecs were retained.

Assignees were also normalized across subsidiaries and parent entities. They were then categorized into High, Medium, and Low actionability groups.

Five Analytical Layers Connected Technical Relevance With Transactability

The assessment covered five sequential layers:

1. Technical taxonomy development
   Defined coding tools from broad functional domains to granular mechanisms, creating a consistent analytical boundary.
2. Standard exclusivity assessment
   Separated patents mapping directly to AV1’s normative tools from technologies shared with adjacent codecs.
3. Selling likelihood assessment
   Evaluated the probability of an assignee transacting based on prior transactions, licensing-pool participation, entity classification, prosecution activity, and litigation history.
4. Portfolio value assessment
   Measured portfolio strength using declared standard-essential patents, quality composition, geographic coverage, and remaining patent lifespan.
5. Strategic convergence analysis
   Combined portfolio value and selling likelihood while considering strategic mandate, transaction routing, buyer identity, and competitive relationships to identify high-confidence acquisition targets.

Selling Likelihood and Portfolio Value Were Scored Separately

A technically strong portfolio was not automatically an acquisition opportunity.

Several organizations held valuable AV1 portfolios but showed clear signs of maintaining a hold-and-license strategy. Ranking assignees by portfolio strength alone would have prioritized assets that were unlikely to become available.

The two dimensions were therefore scored using independent parameter sets.

Five Parameters Assessed Selling Likelihood

1. Prior transaction behavior
   Previous transfers in adjacent codec domains were used as a proxy for willingness to sell.
2. Ecosystem and licensing-pool participation
   Active licensors already had a monetization mechanism and therefore less incentive to sell.
3. Entity classification
   The analysis distinguished operating companies, research institutions, and monetization vehicles.
4. Prosecution activity
   Heavy continuation filing indicated a stronger hold-and-license posture.
5. Litigation history
   Prior assertion activity suggested monetization through enforcement.

Four Parameters Assessed Portfolio Value

1. Declared standard-essential patents
2. Portfolio quality index based on AV1-exclusive versus shared-codec composition
3. Geographic coverage across major jurisdictions
4. Remaining portfolio lifespan

Separating these two dimensions prevented high-value but unavailable portfolios from appearing as attractive acquisition targets.

Composite Scoring Tested Strength While Signal Screening Tested Availability

Because portfolio value and selling likelihood were scored on independent axes, a composite score could combine them without allowing portfolio strength to mask a lack of transactability.

Each assignee received a composite score built from selling-likelihood and portfolio-value parameters. The score answered one question: Does high portfolio value sit together with a credible reason to expect a transaction?

However, a high score alone could not determine whether a transaction was realistically achievable. The highest-scoring assignees were therefore screened through different AI-assisted workflows that examined additional behavioral and structural signals.

The screening assessed:

• Outbound transfer volume: Frequency of historical patent sales or transfers
• Transfer routing quality: Whether previous transfers involved genuine third-party transactions or internal corporate reorganizations
• Entity strategic mandate: Whether government bodies, research institutes, sovereign NPEs, or post-restructuring entities showed structural reasons to sell
• Transaction history with the client: Previous transactions with the acquiring company as a strong positive signal
• Inbound-to-outbound balance: A net-acquirer profile was treated as a negative indicator regardless of AV1 portfolio strength
• Regulatory blockers: US Entity List status, MOFCOM restrictions, or defense classification triggered low-confidence overrides
• Competitive relationship: Direct market overlap with the client was treated as a significant transaction barrier

Together, these signals ensured that a single positive indicator could not carry an assignee onto the shortlist. A single hard blocker could also remove an otherwise attractive target.

More Than 200 Assignees Were Narrowed to 15–20 Potential Sellers

The final shortlist emerged where strong portfolio value converged with credible sell-side signals.

Several owners of large, high-quality AV1 portfolios were screened out because the available evidence pointed toward a hold-and-license posture. A ranking based only on portfolio strength would have placed them among the strongest targets.

The highest-confidence targets clustered into three owner archetypes:

1. Research institutions, including universities and national research bodies
2. Restructured operating companies stepping back from product lines
3. Dedicated monetization vehicles

Each archetype represented a different transaction pathway and helped determine how the client should approach each target.

Joint Ownership Created a Systematic Clean-Title Risk

Another structural pattern appeared in heavily patented areas, particularly transform and entropy coding.

A meaningful share of relevant patents carried joint university ownership. This was a structural characteristic of the landscape rather than an isolated diligence issue.

The finding required systematic clean-title evaluation across multiple acquisition targets.

AV1 Exclusivity Changed What a Strong Portfolio Meant

Only a small fraction of the analyzed patents mapped exclusively to AV1’s normative tools. Most described technologies shared with adjacent codecs.

A portfolio weighted toward AV1-exclusive patents offered direct licensing leverage on AV1 itself.

A portfolio weighted toward shared implementation patents offered broader cross-codec relevance, including a bridge toward AV2. However, it did not provide the same exclusivity.

Treating both categories as the same asset class would have distorted valuation and acquisition prioritization across the wider video coding patent landscape.

Every Target Was Classified Into Four Actionable Categories

The final acquisition framework placed each target into one of four categories:

High-Confidence Targets

Strong portfolio value and credible sell-side signals, refined further through strategic, transactional, and regulatory considerations.

Strong but Unavailable

High-value portfolios where the available signals indicated a hold-and-license posture.

Available but Limited

Targets showing sell-side signals but lacking sufficient portfolio value or AV1 exclusivity to justify acquisition priority.

Structural-Risk Flag

Targets involving joint or institutional ownership in critical technical areas where clean-title resolution was required before any transaction.

What Should IP and M&A Teams Consider Before Acquiring AV1 Patent Portfolios?

IP and M&A teams should not build acquisition shortlists from patent counts alone. They need to determine which assets are exclusive to AV1 rather than shared across adjacent codecs, which owners show credible signals of willingness to transact, and where joint or institutional ownership could complicate a clean purchase.

GreyB helps organizations move from large patent landscapes and raw patent data to validated acquisition opportunities through patent acquisition studies and transaction-focused IP assessments.

Fill out the form below and connect with our expert today.