Federal Circuit Invalidates SITO Mobile’s Media Routing Patent Against Hulu
Was möchten Sie als Nächstes tun?
Wählen Sie Ihren Weg entsprechend Ihren aktuellen Bedürfnissen:
📋 Fallzusammenfassung
| Fallbezeichnung | SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC and SITO Mobile, Ltd. v. Hulu, LLC |
| Fallnummer | 22-1927 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Gericht | Federal Circuit, Appeal from PTAB Final Written Decision |
| Dauer | June 23, 2022 – April 5, 2024 652 days |
| Ergebnis | Defendant Win — Claims Unpatentable |
| Streitige Patente | |
| Beschuldigte Produkte | Hulu Streaming Platform / Media Delivery Systems |
Fallübersicht
Die Parteien
⚖️ Kläger
Intellectual property holding and licensing entities focused on mobile and digital media technologies, leveraging its IP portfolio against digital media platforms.
🛡️ Beklagter
Leading subscription video-on-demand streaming service, co-owned by The Walt Disney Company, operating a significant content delivery platform.
Das streitige Patent
This case centered on U.S. Patent No. 9,135,635 B2, directed to a “system and method for routing media,” and involved 14 specific claims ultimately deemed unpatentable. The ‘635 patent broadly covers architecture for directing media content through networked systems — technology directly implicated in how streaming platforms like Hulu deliver video to end users.
- • US9135635B2 — “System and method for routing media,” covering claims 1–5, 7, 11–13, 17, 18, 20, and 22.
Developing a new streaming solution?
Check if your media routing technology might infringe related patents before launch.
Das Urteil und die rechtliche Analyse
Ergebnis
The Federal Circuit ordered that claims 1–5, 7, 11–13, 17, 18, 20, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,135,635 B2 are unpatentable, affirming the PTAB’s Final Written Decision. No specific damages award is associated with this proceeding, as the action was an invalidity/cancellation action rather than a damages-bearing infringement trial. The court’s order further directed that any parties seeking judicial review of the decision must comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
Wichtige rechtliche Fragen
The Federal Circuit’s analysis affirmed the PTAB’s finding of unpatentability for the challenged claims, reinforcing the Board’s role as a validity gatekeeper. While the specific legal grounds were not explicitly detailed in the public record, PTAB proceedings challenging software and media routing patents have historically centered on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (abstract idea challenges). The Federal Circuit’s affirmance signals that the PTAB’s evidentiary record and legal reasoning withstood appellate scrutiny under the deferential substantial evidence standard.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis for Media Technology
This case highlights critical IP risks in media routing and streaming system design. Choose your next step:
📋 Die Auswirkungen dieses Falls verstehen
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation for media routing.
- View all related patents in the content delivery space
- See which companies are most active in streaming technology patents
- Understand common invalidity arguments for software patents
🔍 Das Risiko meines Produkts überprüfen
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own media routing or streaming technology.
- Geben Sie Ihre Produktbeschreibung oder technischen Merkmale ein.
- KI identifiziert potenziell blockierende Patente
- Erhalten Sie einen umsetzbaren Risikobewertungsbericht
Hochrisikogebiet
Broad software/media routing claims
Patent für ungültig erklärt
1 patent (14 claims) found unpatentable
Verteidigungsstrategien
PTAB remains an effective tool
✅ Wichtigste Erkenntnisse
Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB’s unpatentability finding for 14 claims of US9135635B2 in *SITO Mobile v. Hulu* (Case No. 22-1927).
Verwandte Rechtsprechung suchen →Post-grant proceedings (IPR, PGR) remain the dominant defense strategy against media technology patent assertions.
Präzedenzfälle erkunden →PTAB factual findings receive deferential review; building a strong evidentiary record at the board level is decisive.
Erfahren Sie mehr über die PTAB-Strategie →Häufig gestellte Fragen
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 9,135,635 B2 (Application No. US13/842143), directed to a “system and method for routing media.” Claims 1–5, 7, 11–13, 17, 18, 20, and 22 were found unpatentable.
The Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB Final Written Decision in an invalidity/cancellation action finding the asserted claims unpatentable. Specific statutory grounds are not detailed in the available public record.
The decision reinforces the viability of PTAB post-grant proceedings as a cost-effective defense against media technology patent assertions, encouraging similar strategies across the streaming industry.
Sind Sie bereit, Ihre Patentstrategie zu stärken?
Schließen Sie sich den über 18.000 Fachleuten aus dem Bereich des geistigen Eigentums an, die PatSnap Eureka nutzen, um mit KI-gestützter Präzision Recherchen zum Stand der Technik durchzuführen, Patentanmeldungen zu erstellen und Wettbewerbslandschaften zu analysieren.
Referenzen
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Case 22-1927
- U.S. Patent No. 9,135,635 B2 on Google Patents
- Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) E2E System
- PatSnap – Lösungen für den Umgang mit geistigem Eigentum für Anwaltskanzleien
Dieser Artikel dient ausschließlich zu Informationszwecken und stellt keine Rechtsberatung dar. Alle Angaben zu den Fällen stammen aus öffentlich zugänglichen Gerichtsakten. Informationen zu den Funktionen der Plattform finden Sie auf PatSnap.