Broadband iTV v. Amazon: Federal Circuit Affirms VOD Patent Invalidity Under § 101
Broadband iTV asserted six patents covering video-on-demand delivery and dynamic electronic program guide technology against Amazon, Amazon Web Services, and Amazon.com Services LLC. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding all asserted claims directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas — ending a 671-day appellate battle with no surviving claims.
Six VOD patents wiped out on abstract-idea grounds at the Federal Circuit
Broadband iTV, Inc. (BBiTV) filed this appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 2 November 2022, challenging a district court ruling that had invalidated six of its patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents — US10028026B2, US10506269B2, US10536751B2, US10536750B2, US9973825B2, and US9648388B2 — cover dynamic EPG display adjustment based on viewer preferences, VOD content delivery systems, and TV services platform addressing for digital TV providers. The defendants include Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC.
The Federal Circuit issued its decision on 3 September 2024, affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Amazon’s favour. The court held that all asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and are not sufficiently transformed by any inventive concept to survive the two-step Alice/Mayo framework under § 101. BBiTV’s additional arguments were considered and found unpersuasive, leaving none of the six patents with enforceable claims against Amazon.
At 671 days, the appellate phase was notably extended, consistent with complex multi-patent § 101 appeals at the Federal Circuit. The outcome suggests BBiTV’s claim construction arguments and eligibility rebuttals failed to distinguish the asserted claims from the abstract ideas identified below. What remains unknown from the public record is whether any licensing or settlement discussions occurred in parallel, and whether BBiTV intends to seek en banc rehearing or certiorari.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 671 days
671 days from filing to Federal Circuit decision — longer than median Fed. Cir. appeal
Federal Circuit affirms: what the § 101 ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means the district court’s § 101 ruling stands without reversible error
When the Federal Circuit ‘affirms’, it concludes that the lower court committed no reversible legal error. Here, the court applied the two-step Alice/Mayo framework and agreed that all asserted claims are directed to abstract ideas and lack a transformative inventive concept. The affirmance is binding precedent on these patents and forecloses re-litigation of the same § 101 issues by BBiTV against Amazon in the same district.
Alice/Mayo § 101 — abstract ideaAll six BBiTV patents lose enforceability against Amazon’s entire VOD ecosystem
The affirmance extinguishes BBiTV’s infringement claims against Amazon on all six asserted patents. The patents survive in name but cannot be enforced against Amazon on the asserted claims. BBiTV may pursue en banc rehearing or Supreme Court certiorari, though both avenues face steep odds. Any licensing programme BBiTV runs against other VOD and streaming operators is now materially weakened by a Federal Circuit precedent finding the claims patent-ineligible.
Claims invalidated — no damages awardedAmazon secures full § 101 clearance on BBiTV’s VOD and EPG patent portfolio
Amazon, AWS, and Amazon.com Services LLC emerge with a Federal Circuit-level ruling that the asserted claims are abstract and ineligible. This eliminates infringement exposure on Prime Video, Fire TV, and related VOD services covered by the patents. For Amazon, the affirmance also raises the evidentiary bar for any future assertion of the same or closely related BBiTV patents, as the § 101 finding is difficult to overcome without claim amendments or new patent applications.
Full defendant win — § 101 clearedStreaming and VOD platforms gain a § 101 shield against EPG-style patent assertions
The ruling reinforces the Federal Circuit’s consistent treatment of EPG personalisation, VOD content addressing, and viewer-preference-driven navigation as abstract ideas absent meaningful technical implementation detail. Streaming platforms, IPTV operators, and OTT providers facing similar assertions can cite this decision as persuasive authority in early dispositive motions. Patent prosecutors drafting VOD and EPG claims should treat this case as a drafting boundary — functional claiming around viewer preferences and content delivery hierarchies carries elevated § 101 risk.
High § 101 risk for functional VOD claimsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Broadband iTV, Inc. | Company | VOD and EPG technology licensing company — holder of US10028026B2 and five related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | Amazon.com, Inc. — global e-commerce and cloud platform operator; defendant alongside AWS and Amazon.com Services LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Amazon Web Services, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Amazon.com Services LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benoit Quarmby | Attorney | Counsel for Broadband iTV, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Alberti | Attorney | Counsel for Broadband iTV, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hong Lin | Attorney | Counsel for Broadband iTV, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey A. Lamken | Attorney | Counsel for Broadband iTV, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan E. Barbee | Attorney | Counsel for Broadband iTV, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rayiner Hashem | Attorney | Counsel for Broadband iTV, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Kramer | Attorney | Counsel for Broadband iTV, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP | Law Firm | Representing Broadband iTV, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | MoloLamken LLP | Law Firm | Representing Broadband iTV, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. David Hadden | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan G. Tamimi | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ravi Ragavendra Ranganath | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Saina S. Shamilov | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Todd Richard Gregorian | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fenwick & West, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s ruling is unusually explicit in its breadth — the court addressed BBiTV’s full range of arguments and found none persuasive, signalling that the § 101 deficiency was not a close call. The phrase ‘not sufficiently transformed into something other than the abstract idea itself’ tracks Alice step two language directly and confirms the court applied the Mayo/Alice two-step without any claim-saving carve-out. For both parties, the absence of any remand instruction means the district court judgment is final on these claims, with no further proceedings contemplated at the trial level.
US10028026B2 — Dynamic EPG and VOD patent portfolio asserted against Amazon
The six asserted patents — US10028026B2, US10506269B2, US10536751B2, US10536750B2, US9973825B2, and US9648388B2 — cover a cluster of related inventions in video-on-demand content delivery, electronic program guide personalisation, and TV platform addressing. The patents derive from application series filed across 2016–2019 and address how VOD content is organised, addressed, and surfaced to subscribers based on viewer preferences. The Federal Circuit held all asserted claims to be directed to abstract ideas within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Strategically, this patent family represented BBiTV’s core enforcement asset against major streaming and IPTV platforms. The breadth of the portfolio — six patents spanning EPG display, content delivery infrastructure, and platform addressing — suggests a licensing programme targeting the full VOD stack. With the Federal Circuit’s affirmance, the competitive moat these patents provided is significantly eroded. Operators in the streaming, IPTV, and OTT sectors who have received or anticipate assertions from BBiTV or comparable NPEs holding EPG and VOD patents should treat this ruling as a material FTO data point.
Should you run an FTO against US10028026B2 and the BBiTV VOD patent family?
Any company building or operating dynamic EPG interfaces, VOD content delivery pipelines, or viewer-preference-driven navigation for IPTV or OTT platforms should assess exposure against the BBiTV patent family — even post-affirmance. While the Federal Circuit has found the asserted claims patent-ineligible against Amazon, related continuation applications, differently scoped claims, or reissue proceedings could generate new assertion risk. Product teams launching personalised content recommendation layers, adaptive EPG displays, or on-demand addressing systems are the most directly affected.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full BBiTV patent family — including continuations, related applications, and prosecution history — against your product’s technical feature set. Eureka surfaces claim-level overlap, identifies § 101 vulnerability signals in pending claims, and benchmarks your exposure against the claim language the Federal Circuit specifically found ineligible. For in-house IP teams monitoring NPE activity in the streaming sector, Eureka’s litigation monitoring tools also flag new BBiTV filings in real time.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10028026B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit § 101 appeals in VOD, EPG, and streaming patent litigation
Explore Federal Circuit cases involving § 101 abstract idea challenges to VOD content delivery, EPG personalisation, and streaming platform patents — the same technology domain and appellate court as this case.
What this case signals for the streaming and VOD patent IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance sets a clear ceiling on how EPG and VOD delivery claims can survive § 101 scrutiny.
Functional VOD and EPG claims face near-certain § 101 invalidity at summary judgment
The court’s refusal to find a transformative inventive concept across six patents signals that claims describing viewer-preference navigation, content delivery addressing, and EPG dynamic adjustment at a functional level will not survive Alice step two. Patent holders in streaming IP must anchor claims to specific technical implementations — hardware configurations, novel data structures, or unconventional system architectures — to stand any chance of § 101 clearance.
Amazon’s early § 101 strategy continues to succeed — a replicable defence playbook
Amazon’s success here, represented by Fenwick & West, reflects a consistent pattern: pursue summary judgment on § 101 before claim construction or damages discovery, stripping patent holders of leverage. For defendants facing VOD or EPG assertions, this case confirms that an early Alice motion, supported by a narrow claim construction record, remains the highest-ROI defensive posture in this technology category.
Broadband v Amazon.com — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that all asserted claims across BBiTV’s six VOD and EPG patents are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and are not transformed by a sufficient inventive concept under the Alice/Mayo framework. The decision closed the case on 3 September 2024.
BBiTV asserted six patents: US10028026B2, US10506269B2, US10536751B2, US10536750B2, US9973825B2, and US9648388B2. These cover dynamic EPG display adjustment based on viewer preferences, VOD content delivery systems, and TV platform addressing for digital TV service providers.
The Federal Circuit found that the asserted claims are directed to abstract ideas — broadly, the concepts of organising, addressing, and presenting VOD content based on viewer preferences — and that they lack any additional element sufficient to transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter under Alice step two. The court found all of BBiTV’s counter-arguments unpersuasive.
The ruling reinforces that functionally-drafted VOD delivery and EPG personalisation claims face high § 101 invalidity risk at summary judgment. Patent holders relying on similar claim structures should expect defendants to cite this case in early dispositive motions. Future claims in this space require specific technical anchoring beyond viewer-preference navigation and content addressing concepts to survive Alice scrutiny.
BBiTV could petition for en banc rehearing at the Federal Circuit or seek certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, though both face very low grant rates. The patents remain issued but the asserted claims are now judicially determined to be patent-ineligible. BBiTV may also pursue continuation applications with amended or more technically specific claims, though any such claims face heightened scrutiny in light of this ruling.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.