Dolby sues Snap over video codec patents tied to AV1 and HEVC

[Skye Jacobs]

The takeaway: For years, the industry has touted AV1 as the codec capable of sidestepping the royalty and litigation thicket surrounding HEVC. Now, a new lawsuit from Dolby Laboratories against Snap suggests that assumption may have been overly optimistic. The case highlights how emerging codecs remain vulnerable to patent disputes.

In a complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Delaware, Dolby accuses Snap of infringing four video compression patents through Snapchat's use of both HEVC and AV1. The filing argues that AV1 implementations incorporate proprietary inventions that Dolby never licensed on royalty-free terms and that the same technologies already appear in HEVC.

A key point in Dolby's complaint is that AOMedia does not control all the patents used in AV1 implementations and that the codec's specification was completed after many foundational video coding patents had already been filed. Dolby is seeking a jury trial, damages, a ruling that it has no obligation to license the asserted patents under FRAND terms, and an injunction blocking Snap from further infringement.

The lawsuit challenges AV1's "royalty-free" image by highlighting the complex reality of codec patents. The Alliance for Open Media, whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Netflix, promotes AV1 as developed under a royalty-free policy and backed by high-quality reference implementations with a permissive license. Dolby, however, alleges that AV1 reuses concepts from HEVC, noting that both codecs follow nearly identical block-based coding methods. Its suit cites four patents.

Dolby says Snap relies heavily on HEVC and has licensed its patents through a pool. However, the app also handles AV1 videos, decoding and re-encoding them for delivery across various devices. The complaint notes that Snap's software checks whether a device supports AV1 decoding to stream the format when appropriate. According to Dolby, its patented techniques are critical to Snapchat's business, giving the company an unfair competitive advantage by using the technology without paying royalties.

The dispute reflects a broader debate over whether developers can treat AV1 as truly royalty-free. Two patent pool administrators, Access Advance and The Sisvel Group, have already assembled AV1 pools despite AOMedia's objections.

"The legal framework around video codecs is well established, and incorporating patented technology carries clear licensing obligations," Access Advance CEO Peter Moller said when Dolby announced its litigation. "Labeling a codec 'royalty-free' does not eliminate underlying patent rights."

Besides Dolby, InterDigital has a pending suit over AV1, alleging that some Amazon Fire streaming devices infringe its patents by supporting the codec. European Union antitrust authorities reviewed AOMedia's licensing policy in 2022 but closed their investigation in 2023 without issuing a compliance finding.

For streaming platforms, device makers, and large-scale video services, the stakes go beyond a single US case.

"Only because Big Tech says a codec should be royalty-free doesn't mean that it is," intellectual property activist and commentator Florian Mueller told Ars Technica. "Given that all codecs use somewhat similar techniques, the risk of infringing patents held by parties who did not offer royalty-free licenses is substantial."

Mueller said many streaming services operated for years without securing codec licenses because patent holders initially focused on hardware and software, a strategy that is now changing as streaming grows. He argued that companies such as Amazon and Disney are trying to convince courts they should not have to start paying video codec royalties now, after years in which no one, or at least no major player, pursued them for those fees.

Mueller also highlighted a structural difference with HEVC, which was developed with most essential patent holders signing a FRAND licensing pledge. With AV1, he warned, far more patent holders could hold essential patents without any FRAND obligations.

"In that case, they could theoretically ask for anything, even extortionate amounts, up to the point where someone would then stop implementing AV1," he said. "And the really bad thing here, which I'm sure is not Dolby's objective but it could be someone else's, is that someone could purposely make prohibitive royalty demands for AV1 in order to discourage use of the standard."

The outcome of Dolby's and InterDigital's cases could shape whether AV1 remains a practical choice for large-scale deployments. It has been eight years since AV1's release, and adoption still lags behind HEVC. A ruling that Dolby has no obligation to license on FRAND or royalty-free terms would force implementers to revisit assumptions about open video, or potentially rethink codec roadmaps altogether.

Permalink to story:

Dolby sues Snap over video codec patents tied to AV1 and HEVC

 

[Beerfloat]

I don't know why Ars would publish a quote from Florian Mueller. The guy's opinion is for rent and not necessarily informed by facts.

 

[brucek]

I would not miss Dolby if it could somehow be made to go away. If Dolby wants to start patent wars with Big Tech I hope they'll return the favor.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I don't know why Ars would publish a quote from Florian Mueller. The guy's opinion is for rent and not necessarily informed by facts.

Well, its Ars. It's just Reddit tier writing and opinions with a veneer of journalism to cover up the yellow bellied content mill underneath.

 

[yRaz]

I REALLY want to see big tech take on Dolby. They waited YEARS for hardware support to be in everything before they said "but actually, it's not royalty free...."

Would have been nice for them to mention this, say, 5 or 6 years ago? The intentionally didn't. They waited for everyone to get onboard before even mentioning that it might not be royalty free. And I want to know what their parents cover. Some vague patent like "using a number to represent a color"

 

[unoficialoficial]

Here is a compact but detailed evaluation of the case from Gemini:

Dolby's lawsuit against Snap isn't just about "AV1 royalties"; it's a high-stakes legal battle over patents some of them originally filed by General Electric (GE) that Dolby acquired in 2024. While Dolby claims Snap infringes on four key patents for using HEVC and AV1, a significant body of public evidence suggests these patents may be invalid due to prior art that predates their filing dates.

Here is the breakdown of the facts:

1. The Core Dispute

• The Lawsuit: Dolby Video Compression LLC v. Snap Inc. (D. Del., Case No. 1:26-cv-00317).
• The Claim: Dolby alleges Snap infringes on four specific patents by using both HEVC and AV1 in Snapchat. Dolby argues that despite AV1 being marketed as "royalty-free" by the Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia), proprietary inventions within the codec still require licensing.
• The Patents in Suit: All four patents were originally applied for by General Electric (GE)and acquired by Dolby in June 2024.
  • US 10,855,990: Inter-plane prediction.
  • US 9,924,193: Block merging and skip mode.
  • US 9,596,469: Sample array coding for low-delay.
  • US 10,404,272: Entropy encoding/decoding (Dolby specifically seeks an injunction here).

2. The "Prior Art" Problem (Why this is shaky)
Critics and organizations like Unified Patents have successfully challenged these patents, arguing that the technology was already public knowledge before Dolby/GE filed for them. Key evidence includes:

• Patent 10,404,272 (Entropy Encoding): The AV1 specification was publicly released on March 28, 2018, but this patent wasn't filed until November 21, 2018. This suggests the method was already in the public domain.
• Patent 9,596,469 (Low-Delay): Prior art searches cite technical elements described as early as July 2011.
• Patent 9,924,193 (Block Merging): JCT-VC meeting documents from 2010–2011 show these concepts were already being discussed during the HEVC standard development.
• Patent 10,855,990 (Inter-plane Prediction): Academic papers by the original inventors (Fraunhofer HHI) from the mid-2000s describe similar techniques.

3. Legal Precedent & Global Status
These aren't isolated claims; Dolby's portfolio has faced severe scrutiny globally:

• Unified Patents: Has actively filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against this family of patents.
• European Patent Office (EPO): Revoked all claims on related European patent EP 3798988.
• China: Declared certain claims in related patents (e.g., CN1663258) invalid based on prior art.

The Bottom Line
Dolby is betting that the "royalty-free" label on AV1 doesn't cover every single patent holder. However, the technical evidence suggests that the specific patents Dolby is suing over were likely filed after the technology was already public. If the court or PTAB accepts the prior art arguments (which are publicly available in USPTO records), these patents could be invalidated, potentially clearing the path for AV1 to remain truly open-source

 

[Endymio]

While Dolby claims Snap infringes on four key patents for using HEVC and AV1, a significant body of public evidence suggests these patents may be invalid due to prior art that predates their filing dates.
...Patent 10,404,272 (Entropy Encoding): The AV1 specification was publicly released on March 28, 2018, but this patent wasn't filed until November 21, 2018. This suggests the method was already in the public domain.

This patent wasn't a new filing, but a so-called "continuation patent", which isn't allowed to introduce new matter, but to refine existing claims on preexisting patent applications.

From the '272 application: "This application is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/109,953, filed Aug. 23, 2018, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/717,427 filed Sep. 27, 2017, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,090,856, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/479,787 filed Apr. 5, 2017...."

Continuation patents are generally made specifically in response to a competitor's introduction of a potentially infringing product. Did the '272 patent introduce new concepts not part of the continuation chain or not? The suit will have to decide.

 

[yRaz]

This patent wasn't a new filing, but a so-called "continuation patent", which isn't allowed to introduce new matter, but to refine existing claims on preexisting patent applications.

From the '272 application: "This application is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/109,953, filed Aug. 23, 2018, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/717,427 filed Sep. 27, 2017, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,090,856, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/479,787 filed Apr. 5, 2017...."

Continuation patents are generally made specifically in response to a competitor's introduction of a potentially infringing product. Did the '272 patent introduce new concepts not part of the continuation chain or not? The suit will have to decide.

they're mostly used by pharmaceutical companies to overcharge for drugs that have been out of patent since we were still on the gold standard. That said, considering this isn't a life sustaining matter" and that drug companies still win, I doubt anyone will spend the money to fight Dolby unless they really try to throw hands with Big Tech. They're probably more testing the waters and see who bites. Everyone is making so much with AI money printers(sorry, market is down this week) that noone will probably challenge this unless something REALLY BAD happens

 

[daffy duck]

Dolby is the Rambus of sound.

 

[Endymio]

they're mostly used by pharmaceutical companies to overcharge for drugs ...

What you're referring to is an entirely different issue generally called 'product hopping', where *new* patents are granted on existing drugs, merely due to minor formulation changes. I'd consider this an abuse that needs addressing, but if the USPTO would merely do their job with regards to the "non-obviousness" requirement of new patents, it would correct itself.

 

[NumberNine]

Dolby's late-stage capitalism game is soft.

 

[Burty117]

This isn't completely article related but I really dislike the hold Dolby has on the market, most modern TV's (Samsung and LG's anyway) don't even support DTS at all anymore, just Dolby.

This makes using any streaming App on those TV's useless when watching older movies that were mastered in DTS (my latest example being Ice Age from 2002), Audio just doesn't play, you have to use a PlayStation or AppleTV or something, making the TV's not very... Well Smart...

Why has every streaming service gone with Dolby and not DTS?

 

[Endymio]

This makes using any streaming App on those TV's useless when watching older movies that were mastered in DTS (my latest example being Ice Age from 2002)

What streaming service did you encounter using DTS? I have about 9 of them; they're all Dolby only.

 

[bandit8623]

Dolby=Rambus?

 

[Burty117]

What streaming service did you encounter using DTS? I have about 9 of them; they're all Dolby only.

Plex, rip an old DVD or Bluray where the movie has been mastered in DTS, it won't play any Audio, just silence, and for some reason, these TV's don't report back saying they can't handle DTS, no transcoding takes place.

But you also show an issue, 9 different streaming services and not a single one supports DTS? Why does Dolby have a monopoly?

 

[Endymio]

Plex, rip an old DVD or Bluray where the movie has been mastered in DTS, it won't play any Audio

So you're streaming your own content? Then you should have transcoded into a format your TV will understand. It's like expecting your Windows or Linux PC to play an old DOS-based game ... it can be done, but only by additional steps. Standards die over time; it's a sad fact of life.

But you also show an issue, 9 different streaming services and not a single one supports DTS? Why does Dolby have a monopoly?

You can't really have a monopoly when free alternatives exist. Many streaming services support (royalty-free) PCM in the absence of Dolby. Also, I hear Disney+ is now offering the new DTS-X encoding (which actually is superior to Dolby Atmos) ... but very few TVs support it yet.

 

[Burty117]

So you're streaming your own content? Then you should have transcoded into a format your TV will understand. It's like expecting your Windows or Linux PC to play an old DOS-based game ... it can be done, but only by additional steps.

DTS was removed quietly, go back 10 years ago, everything played DTS that played Dolby, LG supported it until last year, Samsung stopped back in 2020 I think it was.
Also, transcoding into a lower format isn't exactly ideal.

You can't really have a monopoly when free alternatives exist. Many streaming services support (royalty-free) PCM in the absence of Dolby. Also, I hear Disney+ is now offering the new DTS-X encoding (which actually is superior to Dolby Atmos) ... but very few TVs support it yet.

DTS-X is 10 years old, it's not new, I don't really know why Disney bothered, it was something TV's could do 5-10 years ago, but has now been stripped out.

I have other ways of watching my own content where it works perfectly fine, my point was, Smart TV's have actually gotten worse, they seem to support less and less, and it doesn't seem to matter if you buy a £200 LG or a £20,000 LG, you still won't get any more support.

Standard die over time; it's a sad fact of life.

This is true, yet Dolby Digital (AC-3) from 1991 is still supported everywhere, and it was noticibly inferior to DTS even back in the DVD days.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Also, transcoding into a lower format isn't exactly ideal.

You’re confused. DVD’s content uses only old, basic compression for video (MPEG-1). You can fit 5x more content with absolutely no noticeable difference by transcoding to a newer format. And the best audio is stored in PCM (essentially lossless), but all supported formats are similarly old/outdated (MP2, AC-3). You can easily transcode that into a compressed, lossless audio format if you’d like.

The only way transcoding isn’t ideal is that it takes up time and you need to be deliberate if you want to include subtitles. I did that with no problems at all using Handbrake on a Raspberry Pi. I just let it run overnight with a whole set of my DVDs I had extracted.

 

[obsidian76]

You’re confused. DVD’s content uses only old, basic compression for video (MPEG-1). You can fit 5x more content with absolutely no noticeable difference by transcoding to a newer format. And the best audio is stored in PCM (essentially lossless), but all supported formats are similarly old/outdated (MP2, AC-3). You can easily transcode that into a compressed, lossless audio format if you’d like.

The only way transcoding isn’t ideal is that it takes up time and you need to be deliberate if you want to include subtitles. I did that with no problems at all using Handbrake on a Raspberry Pi. I just let it run overnight with a whole set of my DVDs I had extracted.

Commercial DVD movies which I think Burty117 is talking about are encoded using MPEG-2 for video. MPEG-1 was used for VCD (remember them?)

 

[Burty117]

You’re confused. DVD’s content uses only old, basic compression for video (MPEG-1). You can fit 5x more content with absolutely no noticeable difference by transcoding to a newer format. And the best audio is stored in PCM (essentially lossless), but all supported formats are similarly old/outdated (MP2, AC-3). You can easily transcode that into a compressed, lossless audio format if you’d like.

The only way transcoding isn’t ideal is that it takes up time and you need to be deliberate if you want to include subtitles. I did that with no problems at all using Handbrake on a Raspberry Pi. I just let it run overnight with a whole set of my DVDs I had extracted.

Commercial DVD movies which I think Burty117 is talking about are encoded using MPEG-2 for video. MPEG-1 was used for VCD (remember them?)

Thanks both, I was only talking about Audio though, transcoding from DTS to Dolby Digital is a downgrade, DTS had noticeably higher bit rate.

Also, speaking of dead formats, why do modern TV’s support MPEG-2 playback but not DTS? Just seems there’s been a deliberate attempt at burying DTS rather than it just becoming outdated.

 

[Endymio]

Also, speaking of dead formats, why do modern TV’s support MPEG-2 playback but not DTS?

MPEG-2 is royalty free ... but including DTS on TVs cost money.

I was only talking about Audio though, transcoding from DTS to Dolby Digital is a downgrade, DTS had noticeably higher bit rate.

If you're enough of a purist to notice that difference, you shouldn't be running audio through the low-power, high-noise, high THD TV circuits anyway. Stream to a DTS-capable amp and output video from it to your TV.

 

[Burty117]

MPEG-2 is royalty free ... but including DTS on TVs cost money.

I'll quote myself:

it doesn't seem to matter if you buy a £200 LG or a £20,000 LG, you still won't get any more support.

If you're enough of a purist to notice that difference

You didn't even need to be a purist in the DVD days, DTS was clearly better, Bluray onwards it's harder to tell and kinda more depends how it's mixed than the format.

you shouldn't be running audio through the low-power, high-noise, high THD TV circuits anyway. Stream to a DTS-capable amp and output video from it to your TV.

It's digital audio...

Anyway, how do you think I get around it? I have the amp and everything, it's just annoying I can't stream straight from my TV for no good reason.

 

[IPNerd]

This completely misunderstands patent law. Patent 10,404,272 WAS filed 11/21/2018. But it was a continuation of an application originally filed on January 14, 2011. Any patent claim (what is actually litigated) must reference in the specification from the provisional US application in 2011. The "priority date" is therefore January 14, 2011. This means that any prior art must date from before 2011.

Note that this patent was filed halfway through the four-year development of the HEVC codec (2009-2013). HEVC as a codec was finalized and published five years before AV1. This is the core critique of AV1 - that hundreds of researchers worked together in the early 2010s to develop the HEVC codec, openly publishing their work and agreeing to license related innovation in a Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) manner. AV1 then (allegedly) borrowed innovations made public 7+ years earlier, but claimed it was "free" to use.

There is incredible irony in your description of US9,596,469, where you note that "Patent 9,596,469 (Low-Delay): Prior art searches cite technical elements described as early as July 2011."

This patent was first filed on July 15, 2011. Perhaps that's why the art dates from then? Lol

Here is a compact but detailed evaluation of the case from Gemini:

Dolby's lawsuit against Snap isn't just about "AV1 royalties"; it's a high-stakes legal battle over patents some of them originally filed by General Electric (GE) that Dolby acquired in 2024. While Dolby claims Snap infringes on four key patents for using HEVC and AV1, a significant body of public evidence suggests these patents may be invalid due to prior art that predates their filing dates.

Here is the breakdown of the facts:

1. The Core Dispute

• The Lawsuit: Dolby Video Compression LLC v. Snap Inc. (D. Del., Case No. 1:26-cv-00317).
• The Claim: Dolby alleges Snap infringes on four specific patents by using both HEVC and AV1 in Snapchat. Dolby argues that despite AV1 being marketed as "royalty-free" by the Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia), proprietary inventions within the codec still require licensing.
• The Patents in Suit: All four patents were originally applied for by General Electric (GE)and acquired by Dolby in June 2024.
  • US 10,855,990: Inter-plane prediction.
  • US 9,924,193: Block merging and skip mode.
  • US 9,596,469: Sample array coding for low-delay.
  • US 10,404,272: Entropy encoding/decoding (Dolby specifically seeks an injunction here).

2. The "Prior Art" Problem (Why this is shaky)
Critics and organizations like Unified Patents have successfully challenged these patents, arguing that the technology was already public knowledge before Dolby/GE filed for them. Key evidence includes:

• Patent 10,404,272 (Entropy Encoding): The AV1 specification was publicly released on March 28, 2018, but this patent wasn't filed until November 21, 2018. This suggests the method was already in the public domain.
• Patent 9,596,469 (Low-Delay): Prior art searches cite technical elements described as early as July 2011.
• Patent 9,924,193 (Block Merging): JCT-VC meeting documents from 2010–2011 show these concepts were already being discussed during the HEVC standard development.
• Patent 10,855,990 (Inter-plane Prediction): Academic papers by the original inventors (Fraunhofer HHI) from the mid-2000s describe similar techniques.

3. Legal Precedent & Global Status
These aren't isolated claims; Dolby's portfolio has faced severe scrutiny globally:

• Unified Patents: Has actively filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against this family of patents.
• European Patent Office (EPO): Revoked all claims on related European patent EP 3798988.
• China: Declared certain claims in related patents (e.g., CN1663258) invalid based on prior art.

The Bottom Line
Dolby is betting that the "royalty-free" label on AV1 doesn't cover every single patent holder. However, the technical evidence suggests that the specific patents Dolby is suing over were likely filed after the technology was already public. If the court or PTAB accepts the prior art arguments (which are publicly available in USPTO records), these patents could be invalidated, potentially clearing the path for AV1 to remain truly open-source

 

[IPNerd]

They did not wait years for hardware support to make this case. The first patent pools covering AV1 technology were announced in March 2019, with patent lists of IP covering the AV1 standard published in March 2020. The first licensees to join these pools, effectively admitting the non-royalty-free nature of the standards, joined in May 2020.

64 companies have been paying royalties on the AV1 codec for over six years, yet AOM continues to pretend that it is royalty-free. 50% of hardware devices using AV1 currently pay royalties to this pool, which includes Dolby and 20 other companies (ETRI, Orange, Philips, NTT, etc).

I REALLY want to see big tech take on Dolby. They waited YEARS for hardware support to be in everything before they said "but actually, it's not royalty free...."

Would have been nice for them to mention this, say, 5 or 6 years ago? The intentionally didn't. They waited for everyone to get onboard before even mentioning that it might not be royalty free. And I want to know what their parents cover. Some vague patent like "using a number to represent a color"

I REALLY want to see big tech take on Dolby. They waited YEARS for hardware support to be in everything before they said "but actually, it's not royalty free...."

Would have been nice for them to mention this, say, 5 or 6 years ago? The intentionally didn't. They waited for everyone to get onboard before even mentioning that it might not be royalty free. And I want to know what their parents cover. Some vague patent like "using a number to represent a color"