Content Moderation Patents: A Technical Primer for IP Strategy

This article provides general information about content moderation patents and is not legal advice. Patent strategy involves complex legal and technical considerations—always consult qualified patent counsel before making decisions about your intellectual property position.

As platforms process billions of user-generated posts daily, the content moderation patent landscape has become increasingly dense and strategically important. In our work analysing technical evidence in patent disputes, we see content moderation patents covering sophisticated AI systems that automatically detect harmful content—from hate speech and misinformation to violent imagery and harassment. This article explores the technical foundations, key patents, and litigation trends shaping this critical area of intellectual property.

The exponential growth of social media has created unprecedented challenges in content governance. Platforms such as Meta, Google, and Microsoft have invested heavily in automated moderation technologies, resulting in a complex patent ecosystem where competitive advantages often depend on superior detection algorithms and processing efficiency.

Why Content Moderation Patents Matter

The Commercial Stakes

The global content moderation solutions market reached USD 10.85 billion in 2023, with projections suggesting growth to USD 26.18 billion by 203133. Alternative analyses estimate USD 12.01 billion in 2024, growing at 13.4% CAGR through 203080. These figures reflect the enormous commercial value at stake in this technology sector.

For companies operating in this space, patent positions can determine:

• Freedom to operate with existing moderation technologies
• Licensing leverage in commercial negotiations
• Defensive capabilities against infringement claims
• Strategic value in mergers, acquisitions, and partnerships

Who Needs to Understand This Landscape

In our experience, several categories of organisations require detailed understanding of content moderation patents:

Organisation Type	Primary Concern	Key Considerations
Social media platforms	Freedom to operate	Existing patent exposure, design-around options
AI/ML companies	Technology licensing	Prior art, claim scope, enforcement risk
Content moderation vendors	Competitive positioning	Patent portfolio development, licensing strategy
Technology acquirers	Due diligence	Portfolio valuation, litigation exposure
Investors	Risk assessment	IP strength, infringement liability

How Content Moderation Systems Work

Understanding the technical architecture is essential for evaluating patent claims and designing around protected technologies. Modern content moderation operates across several technical layers.

Machine Learning Classifiers

Modern content moderation relies heavily on machine learning classifiers that analyse textual, visual, and audio content to identify policy violations. These systems use supervised learning approaches trained on vast datasets of labelled content examples1. Recent academic research has demonstrated significant advances in specialised classifier architectures for content moderation tasks.

STAND-Guard, published in November 2024, uses instruction tuning on small language models to create task-adaptive content moderation classifiers56. The model achieves comparable performance to GPT-3.5-Turbo across 40+ datasets and nearly equivalent results to GPT-4-Turbo on unseen English binary classification tasks, demonstrating the effectiveness of specialised training approaches56.

Meta's recently issued patent (US 12,417,413, September 2025) demonstrates the industry standard approach: "a machine learning content moderation component" that "receives input data representative of a media post or message" and "combines outputs of the plurality of machine learning models to generate a moderation result indicating whether the media post or message contains offensive content"[2]. This multi-model ensemble approach reflects the technical reality that no single algorithm can reliably detect all forms of harmful content.

SLM-Mod research published in October 2024 reveals a counterintuitive finding: small language models (under 15B parameters) actually outperform larger LLMs at content moderation when fine-tuned57. Using 150K Reddit comments across 15 communities, small models achieved 11.5% higher accuracy and 25.7% higher recall on average compared to zero-shot large language models, with minimal gains from few-shot learning57.

The patent describes systems capable of processing text, emoji, photos, videos, and audio formats to identify hate speech, toxicity, harassment, misinformation, and bullying2. These classifiers operate by extracting features from content and comparing them against learned patterns associated with policy violations.

Natural Language Processing Techniques

NLP represents a critical component of text-based content moderation. Recent research demonstrates significant advances in transformer-based models for content classification3. Google's ShieldGemma, built on Gemma2, outperforms existing solutions like Llama Guard by +10.8% on public benchmarks whilst addressing sexually explicit content, dangerous content, harassment, and hate speech detection3.

BingoGuard represents the current state-of-the-art in LLM-based content moderation, introducing systems that predict both binary safety labels and severity levels across 11 harmful topics58. The model achieves 4.3% improvement over previous best approaches like WildGuard on multiple benchmarks including WildGuardTest and HarmBench, using professionally annotated datasets with 54,897 training examples explicitly labelled with severity rubrics58.

Evaluation methodologies have become increasingly sophisticated with the development of comprehensive benchmarks. ChineseHarm-Bench provides 6,000 real-world samples across six harm categories for Chinese-language content moderation59. OutSafe-Bench offers the first comprehensive multimodal safety benchmark spanning four modalities with over 18,000 bilingual text prompts, 4,500 images, 450 audio clips, and 450 videos across nine risk categories60.

OpenAI's patent application US20240362421A1 covers "systems and methods for language model-based content classification," representing the cutting edge of NLP-based moderation technology4. These systems leverage large language models' contextual understanding to make nuanced decisions about content appropriateness.

Academic research has also emphasised localisation challenges in content moderation. LionGuard demonstrates the importance of culturally-specific approaches, creating a Singapore-contextualised moderation classifier for Singlish that outperforms widely-used moderation APIs by 14% (binary) and up to 51% (multi-label)61. This work highlights how global moderation systems often fail to account for local linguistic and cultural contexts.

Interestingly, research published in October 2024 revealed that smaller language models (<15B parameters) actually outperform larger LLMs at content moderation tasks, achieving 11.5% higher accuracy and 25.7% higher recall on community-specific moderation across Reddit communities5. This finding suggests that specialised, efficient models may be more effective than general-purpose large models for moderation applications.

Computer Vision for Images and Video

Visual content moderation presents unique technical challenges requiring sophisticated computer vision approaches. Academic research has established ResNet-50 as a prominent architecture for NSFW detection, with studies demonstrating that ResNet-50 outperforms basic CNN approaches in classifying images as safe-for-work (SFW) or not-safe-for-work (NSFW), achieving improved accuracy over traditional convolutional neural networks alone62.

Amazon Technologies' patent US11423265B1 demonstrates content moderation using object detection and image classification techniques6. This approach combines object detection with image classification to identify and moderate inappropriate visual content.

Advanced visual moderation systems employ multiple detection strategies for robust performance. Research has explored end-to-end classifiers alongside region-based detection methods, including person detection and body part identification63. An end-to-end classifier achieved 90.17% accuracy when augmented with additional neutral samples and adult pornography data, whilst body-oriented approaches provide more interpretable results, which is valuable when direct data access is limited63.

Meta Platforms holds patent US10198637B2 covering systems for determining video feature descriptors based on convolutional neural networks7. This technology enables the extraction of meaningful features from video content using deep learning, supporting automated detection of policy violations in visual media.

ShieldGemma 2, a recent 4-billion parameter model, represents state-of-the-art performance in image content moderation, classifying risks across categories including sexually explicit content, violence, and dangerous material for both synthetic and natural images64. This model demonstrates the progression toward more comprehensive visual safety systems capable of handling both natural and AI-generated visual content.

Google has patented video moderation systems that use neural networks to identify videos containing objectionable content—including violence, pornography, animal abuse, and objectionable language—by creating numerical representations (embeddings) of video features and comparing them to known problematic content8. Comparative analyses in academic research evaluate multiple classification techniques, including CNN-based models, vision transformers, and open-source safety checkers from platforms like Stable Diffusion65.

Hybrid Human-AI Approaches

The most sophisticated moderation systems combine automated detection with human oversight. Recent academic research has revealed significant gaps between automated toxicity detection and volunteer moderators' actual needs66. A 2024 EMNLP study found that whilst extensive automation efforts target toxic content, moderators need support for diverse rule violations across different platforms, with state-of-the-art LLMs exhibiting only moderate to low performance on many platform-specific rules66.

Modulate Inc's patent US11996117B2 describes a multi-stage adaptive system that integrates automated processing with human review capabilities9. This approach enables organisations to handle content at scale whilst maintaining quality oversight.

IBM's patent US12271788B2 covers a hybrid framework combining user-contributed rules with machine learning models10. This system allows human moderators to create custom rules whilst leveraging automated learning capabilities, providing the flexibility needed for diverse platform policies and community standards.

Meta's production systems exemplify this hybrid approach: AI teams build foundational machine learning models to recognise patterns in photos and understand text, whilst integrity teams build specialised models on top of these to make specific predictions about policy violations11. A separate enforcement system then decides whether to delete, demote, or send content to human review based on confidence thresholds and potential harm levels.

Key Patents in Content Moderation

Automated Classification Patents

The patent landscape for automated content classification has expanded rapidly since 2020. Patent US12,417,413, issued September 2025, represents a significant milestone covering machine learning-based content moderation that analyses media posts using multiple ML models to detect offensive content across text, emoji, photos, video, and audio2.

PlanetArt's patent application US20250292016A1, published September 2025, covers filtering content for automated user interactions using language models, focusing on natural language handling and semantic analysis12. This patent demonstrates the industry's move toward more sophisticated NLP-based filtering approaches.

Hate Speech Detection

Specialised hate speech detection patents have emerged as platforms seek to address toxic online behaviour. IBM's issued patent US11138237B2 covers social media toxicity analysis, classifying media messages and content for problematic material13. This patent, granted October 2021, established key prior art in the automated toxicity detection space.

The technical approaches in these patents typically involve training machine learning models on datasets labelled for various forms of hate speech, then deploying these models to classify new content in real-time. The challenge lies in balancing accuracy with the cultural and contextual nuances that determine whether speech constitutes harassment or hate.

Misinformation Detection

Google's patent applications address misinformation detection using neural network language models trained on social media posts classified as either misinformation or benign content14. The system can generate threat warnings and reports for analysts when posts exceed a misinformation threshold, representing a proactive approach to combating false information campaigns.

This technical approach reflects the complexity of misinformation detection, which requires understanding not just content accuracy but also intent, context, and potential harm. The patent describes AI systems that can identify "information operations campaigns on social media" using sophisticated pattern recognition techniques14.

Image and Video Moderation

Visual content moderation patents demonstrate the application of computer vision and convolutional neural networks to harmful content detection. Multi-stage adaptive systems like those covered in US11996117B2 process different content types through specialised pipelines optimised for visual analysis9.

Sony Interactive Entertainment's patent US20240379107A1 covers real-time AI screening and auto-moderation of audio comments in livestreams, enabling speech-to-text processing and automated content filtering for live video platforms15. This represents the extension of moderation technology to real-time streaming applications.

Technical Architecture Analysis

ML Classifier Architectures

Modern content moderation employs ensemble architectures that combine multiple specialised models. Meta's Class-RAG (Classification with Retrieval-Augmented Generation), published October 2024, demonstrates advanced approaches using large language models with access to dynamically updatable retrieval libraries for content classification16. This approach provides flexibility for rapid risk mitigation without constant model retraining and shows improved robustness against adversarial attacks.

The technical architecture typically involves:

• Feature extraction layers that convert text, images, or audio into numerical representations
• Classification layers trained to recognise patterns associated with policy violations
• Ensemble methods that combine predictions from multiple specialised models
• Confidence scoring systems that route uncertain cases to human reviewers

Rule-Based Systems

Whilst machine learning dominates modern approaches, rule-based systems remain important for handling explicit policy requirements. SAP's patent US20220383154A1 presents computer-automated processing that supplements machine learning with rules, allowing rules to enhance or guide untrained models in decision-making17.

Rule-based approaches offer several advantages:

• Transparency in decision-making processes
• Explicit control over moderation outcomes
• Ability to handle edge cases with clear policy guidance
• Compliance with regulatory requirements for explainable decisions

Hybrid Approaches

The most effective systems combine rule-based and machine learning approaches. Optum's patent US20200311601A1 outlines hybrid systems that use rules and machine learning predictions together to generate outputs and scores for decision-making18.

These hybrid systems leverage the strengths of both approaches—rule-based systems provide transparency and explicit control, whilst machine learning offers adaptability and scalability for complex content moderation tasks. The combination allows platforms to maintain policy consistency whilst adapting to emerging forms of harmful content.

Contextual Analysis

Advanced moderation systems incorporate contextual analysis to improve accuracy. Meta employs a contextual bandit approach that aggregates multiple risk models (both handcrafted rules and machine learning models) into a single ranking score, dynamically calibrating which models are most reliable as violation trends change over time19.

Contextual factors include:

• User behaviour patterns and history
• Community norms and platform-specific policies
• Temporal context (time of posting, current events)
• Linguistic and cultural context
• Content virality and potential reach

Major Players and Patent Portfolios

Meta/Facebook

Meta has developed comprehensive content moderation technologies backed by significant patent portfolios. Their enforcement technology uses a multi-model approach where AI teams build foundational machine learning models to recognise patterns in photos and understand text11.

Meta's patent US12,417,413 represents their latest approach to automated content moderation, covering systems that combine outputs from multiple machine learning models to generate moderation results2. This patent covers detection of hate speech, toxicity, harassment, misinformation, and bullying across multiple content formats.

The company's iterative approach to model improvement—where technology is trained on signals, human reviewers make final decisions, and models improve based on thousands of human decisions over time—represents the industry standard for combining automation with human oversight11.

Google/YouTube

Google's approach to content moderation spans multiple properties, from search results to YouTube video content. Their ContentID system represents one of the most sophisticated automated copyright and content detection systems deployed at scale20. YouTube enforced Community Guidelines by removing over 15.7 million channels in early 2024, primarily for spam and misleading content76.

Recent developments include AI detection tools for ContentID with synthetic-singing identification technology allowing rightsholders to detect and manage unauthorised AI-generated soundalike vocals20. YouTube also requires creators to disclose when realistic content is made with altered or synthetic media, including generative AI21.

Google's patent applications cover AI-driven content moderation systems that use machine learning models to analyse media posts across text, emoji, photo, video, and audio formats to detect offensive content, hate speech, toxicity, and harassment22.

Microsoft

Microsoft offers Azure AI Content Safety as their content moderation solution, providing APIs that scan for sexual content, violence, hate, and self-harm with multiple severity levels23. Their multimodal API analyses both image and text content together to preserve context24.

The service includes advanced features like:

• Custom categories for tailored detection
• Prompt Shields for user input risk detection
• Protected material detection
• Groundedness detection for LLM responses
• Support for over 100 languages with specialised training on major languages23

Specialised Companies

Modulate Inc. has developed multi-stage adaptive content moderation systems covered by patent US11996117B29. Their approach handles various types of harmful content through specialised processing pipelines designed for different content modalities.

Crisp Thinking Group Limited holds patents and trademarks for moderation technology including the CRISP trademark covering software for detecting and moderating online content related to cyberbullying, terrorism, crime, fake news, and propaganda25. Their offerings include predictive and extended intelligence technology for real-time content detection and analysis.

Besedo provides scalable moderation solutions handling billions of items yearly with real-time protection offering sub-50ms response times26. Their AI-powered systems filter spam and profanity in real-time whilst providing customisable content filters with flexible rule creation.

Patent Litigation and Dispute Trends

Recent Cases

Content moderation patent litigation has increased significantly as the technology matures and competitive pressures intensify. In December 2024, a California federal court ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects AI-based content moderation systems27. The court rejected arguments that generative AI models used for content regulation fall outside immunity protections.

X Corp. and Adeia Settlement (June 2024): X Corp. (formerly Twitter) settled a patent dispute with Adeia over digital-media patents, resolving claims related to content recommendations, digital advertising, and social-media integration28. The settlement resolved a dispute over licensing fees that had escalated from $3 million annually to litigation.

Immersion and Meta Settlement (February 2024): Immersion Corporation and Meta Platforms reached a patent license and settlement agreement resolving complaints over six patents related to haptic feedback and user interface technologies29.

Common Validity Challenges

Content moderation patents face several recurring legal challenges:

Subject Matter Eligibility: Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, content moderation patents involving AI/ML must demonstrate they provide more than abstract ideas. The USPTO issued AI-specific subject matter eligibility updates in July 2024 addressing these challenges30.

Obviousness Rejections: Patents claiming broad machine learning approaches for content detection face obviousness challenges based on prior art in related fields like spam filtering and recommendation systems.

Claim Scope Issues: The broad nature of machine learning-based claims presents challenges where patents claiming "combines outputs of multiple machine learning models" must overcome enabling disclosure requirements and definiteness issues31.

Settlement Patterns We Observe

In our experience analysing patent disputes in this space, settlements typically involve:

• Cross-licensing agreements allowing mutual use of foundational technologies
• Licensing fees structured around platform usage metrics
• Covenants not to sue covering current and future implementations
• Technology sharing arrangements for safety and security innovations

The industry has generally favoured settlement over protracted litigation, recognising the collaborative nature needed to address content safety challenges effectively.

Technical Claim Analysis for Patent Evaluation

Understanding Claim Structure

Content moderation patents employ specific technical language to define their scope. Patent US12,417,413 provides an instructive example with claims covering "a machine learning content moderation component" that processes media inputs and combines multiple model outputs2.

The claim structure typically includes:

1. Input Processing: "receives input data representative of a media post or message"
2. Multi-Model Analysis: "analyses the input data using a plurality of machine learning models"
3. Output Combination: "combines outputs of the plurality of machine learning models"
4. Result Generation: "generates a moderation result indicating whether the media post or message contains offensive content"

This structure reflects the technical reality that effective moderation requires ensemble approaches combining specialised models for different content types and violation categories.

Prior Art Considerations

The content moderation patent landscape presents significant prior art challenges. Key considerations include:

Academic Research: Extensive academic work on text classification, sentiment analysis, and computer vision provides substantial prior art for basic approaches to content detection and classification.

Earlier Commercial Systems: Spam filtering technologies, recommendation systems, and early content management platforms established prior art for automated content processing and classification techniques.

Open Source Solutions: The availability of open-source content moderation tools and libraries creates prior art considerations for patent applicants claiming broad algorithmic approaches.

Patent applications must demonstrate specific technical improvements over existing approaches, typically focusing on:

• Novel ensemble architectures
• Improved accuracy metrics
• Reduced computational requirements
• Enhanced real-time processing capabilities
• Better handling of adversarial attacks

Infringement Analysis Challenges

Content moderation patent infringement presents unique technical and legal challenges:

Claim Construction: Courts must interpret technical terms like "machine learning models," "ensemble methods," and "contextual analysis" in ways that align with industry understanding whilst maintaining claim validity.

Evidence Collection: Proving infringement often requires access to proprietary algorithms and training data that companies consider trade secrets, creating tension between patent enforcement and trade secret protection.

Indirect Infringement: Many content moderation systems involve third-party components and cloud services, raising questions about contributory and induced infringement theories.

Damages Calculation: Determining appropriate damages for content moderation patent infringement requires understanding how moderation capabilities contribute to platform value and user engagement metrics.

The technical complexity of modern ML-based moderation systems makes expert testimony critical for both claim construction and infringement analysis. Courts must grapple with rapidly evolving technologies where the state of the art continues to advance during litigation proceedings.

Critical Mistakes in Content Moderation Patent Strategy

What We See Go Wrong

Based on our experience providing technical analysis in patent disputes, these are the most common strategic errors:

Mistake	Why It Happens	Consequence
Over-broad claim drafting	Attempt to maximise coverage	Validity challenges, obviousness rejections
Insufficient technical disclosure	Treating ML as "black box"	Enablement rejections, narrow claim interpretation
Ignoring academic prior art	Focus only on patent databases	Unexpected invalidity arguments
Late freedom-to-operate analysis	Cost avoidance during development	Expensive design-arounds or licensing after launch
Underestimating open source prior art	Assumption patents cover all implementations	Prior art that defeats novelty

Design-Around Considerations

When facing potential infringement, technical design-arounds require careful analysis:

What typically works:

• Alternative model architectures not covered by specific claims
• Different feature extraction approaches
• Modified ensemble combination methods
• Novel training data approaches

What typically does not work:

• Cosmetic changes to interfaces
• Renaming identical technical functions
• Using equivalent mathematical operations
• Different programming languages for same algorithm

Documentation Best Practices

Proper documentation during development can significantly strengthen patent positions:

• Record technical decisions and alternatives considered
• Document performance comparisons with prior approaches
• Maintain clear records of novel technical contributions
• Track academic publications that may constitute prior art

Costs and Commercial Realities

Patent Prosecution Costs

For companies developing content moderation technology, patent prosecution involves significant investment:

Cost Category	US Estimate	Notes
Initial patent application	$15,000–$25,000	Varies with claim complexity
Prosecution (office actions)	$5,000–$15,000	Per response, multiple rounds typical
International filing (PCT)	$3,000–$5,000	Initial phase
National phase entries	$5,000–$15,000 per country	Major jurisdictions
Total per patent family	$50,000–$150,000+	Through grant in multiple jurisdictions

Litigation Cost Exposure

Content moderation patent litigation in the US typically involves:

Stage	Cost Range	Duration
Pre-suit investigation	$50,000–$150,000	2–4 months
Through claim construction	$500,000–$1.5 million	12–18 months
Through trial	$2–$5 million+	24–36 months
Appeal	$500,000–$1 million	Additional 12–24 months

In the UK, costs are generally lower but still substantial. IPEC offers a capped costs regime suitable for smaller disputes, whilst the Patents Court handles more complex matters without caps.

Licensing Economics

Licensing arrangements in content moderation typically involve:

• Per-API-call pricing: Common for cloud-based moderation services
• Platform revenue sharing: Percentage of advertising revenue where moderation enables monetisation
• Fixed annual fees: For enterprise deployments
• Cross-licensing: Reducing cash payments through mutual access

Decision Framework: Evaluating Patent Risk

When to Conduct Freedom-to-Operate Analysis

We typically recommend FTO analysis when:

• Launching new moderation features or products
• Entering new geographic markets with existing technology
• Acquiring companies with moderation technology
• Receiving investment or preparing for IPO
• After receiving any patent-related communication

FTO Analysis Process

1. Identify relevant patent classifications
   └── CPC classes: G06F, G06N, H04L (content filtering)
   
2. Search patent databases
   └── USPTO, EPO, UK IPO, WIPO, commercial databases
   
3. Review potentially relevant patents
   └── Focus on claims, not descriptions
   
4. Analyse claim coverage
   └── Element-by-element comparison
   
5. Assess risk levels
   └── High: literal infringement likely
   └── Medium: doctrine of equivalents exposure
   └── Low: meaningful technical distinctions
   
6. Develop mitigation strategies
   └── Design-around, license, challenge validity

Patent Portfolio Evaluation

When evaluating a content moderation patent portfolio (for acquisition or competitive analysis):

Strength Indicators:

• Claims tied to specific technical implementations
• Multiple continuation applications showing prosecution flexibility
• International coverage in key markets
• Maintenance fees current
• No successful IPR challenges

Weakness Indicators:

• Broadly drafted claims vulnerable to prior art
• Limited international coverage
• Expired maintenance (lapsed patents)
• Unsuccessful enforcement history
• Narrow claim scope after prosecution amendments

Future Developments

The content moderation patent landscape continues evolving as platforms face new challenges from AI-generated content, deepfakes, and sophisticated disinformation campaigns. Recent developments in constitutional AI and self-moderation systems suggest future patents may focus on autonomous safety mechanisms rather than traditional classification approaches32.

The integration of large language models into moderation workflows represents another frontier for patent activity, as demonstrated by OpenAI's recent filings covering language model-based content classification4. These systems promise more nuanced understanding of context and intent but also raise new challenges for patent claim drafting and prosecution.

As the global content moderation solutions market projects substantial growth3380, patent activity in this space will likely intensify. Companies investing in next-generation moderation technologies must navigate an increasingly crowded patent landscape whilst developing defensible intellectual property positions.

The regulatory environment also influences patent strategy, as jurisdictions worldwide implement new requirements for content moderation transparency and algorithmic accountability. Patents that enable compliance with these emerging regulations whilst maintaining competitive advantages in accuracy and efficiency will likely prove most valuable in the evolving landscape.

Conclusion

Content moderation patents represent a complex and rapidly evolving area of intellectual property with significant commercial implications. The technical sophistication of modern AI-based moderation systems creates both opportunities and challenges for patent protection.

Key takeaways:

• The content moderation patent landscape is dominated by major platform companies but includes significant activity from specialised vendors
• Multi-model ensemble architectures and hybrid human-AI approaches represent current best practices
• Patent validity faces challenges from extensive academic prior art and open-source implementations
• Freedom-to-operate analysis should precede any significant product development or acquisition
• Settlement rather than litigation remains the predominant dispute resolution approach

For companies developing or deploying content moderation technology, understanding this patent landscape is essential for strategic planning. Whether evaluating acquisition targets, designing new systems, or responding to enforcement actions, technical analysis of patent claims and prior art can significantly affect outcomes.

---

Sources

[1] Multi-stage adaptive system for content moderation, US Patent 11,996,117B2 (2024) 2 Content moderation Patent, US Patent 12,417,413 (2025) 3 ShieldGemma: Generative AI Content Moderation Based on Gemma, arXiv:2407.21772 (2024) 4 Systems and methods for language model-based content classification, US Patent Application 20240362421A1 (2024) 5 SLM-Mod research on small language models for content moderation, arXiv:2410.13155 (2024) 6 Content moderation using object detection and image classification, US Patent 11,423,265B1 (2022) 7 Systems and methods for determining video feature descriptors based on convolutional neural networks, US Patent 10,198,637B2 (2019) 8 Google's Video Moderation Patent Highlights AI's Role in Tracking 'Objectionable' Content, The Daily Upside (2024) 9 Multi-stage adaptive system for content moderation, US Patent 11,996,117B2 (2024) 10 Hybrid user contributed rules and machine learning framework, US Patent 12,271,788B2 (2024) 11 How enforcement technology works, Meta Transparency Center (2024) 12 Filtering Content for Automated User Interactions Using Language Models, US Patent Application 20250292016A1 (2025) 13 Social media toxicity analysis, US Patent 11,138,237B2 (2021) 14 Google's Patent Could Sniff Out Fake News on Social Media, The Daily Upside (2024) 15 Real-time ai screening and auto-moderation of audio comments in a livestream, US Patent Application 20240379107A1 (2024) 16 Class-RAG: Content Moderation with Retrieval Augmented Generation, arXiv:2410.14881 (2024) 17 Computer-automated processing with rule-supplemented machine learning, US Patent Application 20220383154A1 (2022) 18 Hybrid rule-based and machine learning predictions, US Patent Application 20200311601A1 (2020) 19 Meta contextual bandit approach research, arXiv:2211.06516v1 (2022) 20 YouTube Unveils AI Detection Tools: Advancing ContentID for the AI Era, Lexology (2024) 21 How we're helping creators disclose altered or synthetic content, YouTube Blog (2024) 22 AI-driven content moderation systems patents, Google Patents database (2024) 23 What is Azure AI Content Safety?, Microsoft Documentation (2024) 24 Quickstart: Analyse multimodal content (preview), Microsoft Azure Documentation (2024) 25 CRISP Trademark Application of Crisp Thinking Group Limited, Justia Trademarks (2020) 26 A complete, scalable solution for better content moderation, Besedo.com (2024) 27 AI Content Moderation Protected by Platform Shield, Judge Says, Bloomberg Law (2024) 28 X Corp, Adeia settle legal fight over digital-media patents, Reuters (2024) 29 Patent License and Settlement Agreement, Immersion Corp Business Contracts (2024) 30 Subject matter eligibility, USPTO Patent Examination Guidelines (2024) 31 Content moderation patent claim analysis, USPTO Patent Database (2025) 32 Anthropic Debuts New 'Constitution' for AI to Police Itself, Gizmodo (2023) 33 Automated Content Moderation Market Share, Trends And Overview By 2033, The Business Research Company (2024) 34 Using GPT-4 for content moderation, OpenAI Blog (2024) 35 Anthropic thinks 'constitutional AI' is the best way to train models, TechCrunch (2023) 36 Moody v. NetChoice, LLC Supreme Court case (2024) 37 X Corp. v. Bonta Ninth Circuit decision (2024) 38 Chat GPT Is Eating the World copyright lawsuits tracker (2025) 39 Legilimens: A practical framework for content moderation, arXiv:2408.15488 (2024) 40 TikTok hybrid moderation framework research, arXiv:2512.03553 (2024) 41 Content Moderator API reference, Microsoft Azure Documentation (2024) 42 What is Azure Content Moderator?, Microsoft Azure Documentation (2024) 43 Automatic Speech Recognition for Live Video Comments, US Patent Application 20190206408A1 (2019) 44 Live streaming architecture with server-side stream mixing, US Patent 12,278,855B2 (2024) 45 Pornhub Parent Agrees to End Video-Upload Patent Suit Against It, Bloomberg Law (2024) 46 Patent Landscape Report - Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), WIPO (2024) 47 Content Moderation Solutions Market Size and Growth Analysis, Kings Research (2024) 48 Content Moderation Solutions Market Forecast 2025-2032, GII Research (2024) 49 How to Search USPTO Patent Database, MPEP Section 904 (2022) 50 Using generative artificial intelligence to supplement automated information extraction, US Patent Application 20250054327A1 (2025) 51 System and method for identification of inappropriate multimedia content, US Patent 10,733,326B2 (2020) 52 Video media content analysis, US Patent 10,764,613B2 (2020) 53 Platform content moderation, US Patent 10,163,134B2 (2018) 54 Moderating Content in an Online Forum, US Patent Application 20150163184A1 (2015) 55 Content identification patent, US Patent 8,572,087B1 (2013) 56 STAND-Guard: A Small Task-Adaptive Content Moderation Model, arXiv:2411.05214 (2024) 57 SLM-Mod: Small Language Models Surpass LLMs at Content Moderation, arXiv:2410.13155 (2024) 58 BingoGuard: LLM Content Moderation Tools with Risk Levels, ICLR (2025) 59 ChineseHarm-Bench: A Chinese Harmful Content Detection Benchmark, arXiv:2506.10960 (2024) 60 OutSafe-Bench: Comprehensive Multimodal Content Safety Benchmark, arXiv:2511.10287 (2024) 61 LionGuard: Building a Contextualized Moderation Classifier, arXiv:2407.10995 (2024) 62 Advancements in NSFW Content Detection: ResNet-50 Based Approaches, IJISAE (2024) 63 End-to-end classifier for NSFW content detection, arXiv:2406.14131 (2024) 64 ShieldGemma 2: Image content moderation model, arXiv:2504.01081 (2024) 65 Comparative analysis of CNN-based models for content moderation, arXiv:2312.16338 (2023) 66 Toxicity Detection is NOT all you Need: Supporting Volunteer Content Moderators, EMNLP (2024) 67 Annotator-in-the-loop methodology for content moderation, arXiv:2408.00880 (2024) 68 Venire: Panel-based moderation system, arXiv:2410.23448 (2024) 69 Measuring and Improving Model-Moderator Collaboration, Google Research (2024) 70 Measuring the Mental Health of Content Reviewers, arXiv:2502.00244 (2025) 71 Class-RAG: Real-Time Content Moderation with Retrieval Augmented Generation, arXiv:2410.14881 (2024) 72 Bandits for Online Calibration at Meta Research, arXiv:2211.06516 (2022) 73 CLARA: Confidence of Labels and Raters, Meta Research (2024) 74 TIES: Temporal Interaction Embeddings for Social Media Integrity, Meta AI (2024) 75 Google's Approach to Content Moderation White Paper (2024) 76 YouTube Community Guidelines enforcement, Google Transparency Report (2024) 77 Algorithmic Copyright Enforcement on YouTube: Machine Learning at Scale, SPIR (2019) 78 Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. ___ (2024) 79 USPTO Updates Guidance On Obviousness But Sidesteps AI, Mondaq (2024) 80 Content Moderation Services Market Analysis, Grand View Research (2024) 81 Taxonomy-Adaptive Moderation Model with Robust Guardrails, arXiv:2512.05339 (2024) 82 GradEscape: Gradient-based attacks against AI-generated text detectors, arXiv:2506.08188 (2024) 83 Precision and Recall evaluation metrics for content moderation, arXiv:2305.09601 (2023) 84 The artificial intelligence patent dataset (AIPD) 2023 update, RePEc (2025) 85 USPTO Artificial Intelligence Strategy, USPTO (2025) 86 Content Moderation Solutions Market Forecast, Kings Research (2024)