Federal Circuit Invalidates SITO Mobile’s Media Routing Patent Against Hulu
Que souhaitez-vous faire ensuite ?
Choisissez votre parcours en fonction de vos besoins actuels :
📋 Résumé de l'affaire
| Nom de l'affaire | SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC and SITO Mobile, Ltd. v. Hulu, LLC |
| Numéro de dossier | 22-1927 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Tribunal | Federal Circuit, Appeal from PTAB Final Written Decision |
| Durée | June 23, 2022 – April 5, 2024 652 days |
| Résultat | Defendant Win — Claims Unpatentable |
| Brevets en cause | |
| Produits incriminés | Hulu Streaming Platform / Media Delivery Systems |
Aperçu du dossier
Les parties
⚖️ Demandeur
Intellectual property holding and licensing entities focused on mobile and digital media technologies, leveraging its IP portfolio against digital media platforms.
🛡️ Défendeur
Leading subscription video-on-demand streaming service, co-owned by The Walt Disney Company, operating a significant content delivery platform.
Le brevet en cause
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.
Le verdict et l'analyse juridique
Résultat
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.
Principales questions juridiques
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:
📋 Comprendre l'impact de cette affaire
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
🔍 Vérifier les risques liés à mon produit
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own media routing or streaming technology.
- Saisissez la description de votre produit ou ses caractéristiques techniques.
- L'IA identifie les brevets susceptibles de constituer un obstacle
- Obtenir un rapport d'évaluation des risques exploitable
Zone à haut risque
Broad software/media routing claims
Brevet invalidé
1 patent (14 claims) found unpatentable
Stratégies de défense
PTAB remains an effective tool
✅ Points clés à retenir
Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB’s unpatentability finding for 14 claims of US9135635B2 in *SITO Mobile v. Hulu* (Case No. 22-1927).
Rechercher la jurisprudence connexe →Post-grant proceedings (IPR, PGR) remain the dominant defense strategy against media technology patent assertions.
Explorer les précédents →PTAB factual findings receive deferential review; building a strong evidentiary record at the board level is decisive.
En savoir plus sur la stratégie relative au PTAB →Foire aux questions
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.
Prêt à renforcer votre stratégie en matière de brevets ?
Rejoignez plus de 18 000 professionnels de la propriété intellectuelle qui utilisent PatSnap Eureka pour effectuer des recherches d'antériorité, rédiger des brevets et analyser le paysage concurrentiel avec une précision optimisée par l'IA.
Références
- 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 — Solutions de veille en matière de propriété intellectuelle pour les cabinets d'avocats
Cet article est publié à titre purement informatif et ne constitue en aucun cas un avis juridique. Toutes les informations relatives aux affaires sont tirées de dossiers judiciaires accessibles au public. Pour en savoir plus sur les fonctionnalités de la plateforme, rendez-vous sur PatSnap.