Case Overview

In a decisive appellate ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of a media routing patent asserted by SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC against streaming giant Hulu, LLC—closing a 639-day legal battle with significant implications for streaming technology patent litigation. Issued per curiam by Circuit Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Stoll under Federal Circuit Rule 36, the April 5, 2024 affirmance left SITO Mobile without recourse on US Patent No. 9,591,360, a system and method for routing media.

For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the streaming and digital media space, SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC v. Hulu, LLC (Case No. 22-1989) offers a critical data point: asserting patents against well-resourced technology defendants in the media routing space carries substantial invalidity risk. The Federal Circuit’s unambiguous affirmance underscores the importance of rigorous validity assessment before litigation and reinforces the reputational and financial costs of pursuing patents that cannot survive adversarial scrutiny.

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case involved US Patent No. 9,591,360 B2, covering methods and systems for directing media content to specific endpoints—technology central to streaming platforms’ core operations. The claims implicate how content is dynamically routed across networks, a function integral to services like Hulu.

• • US9,591,360 B2 — System and method for routing media

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The Federal Circuit **affirmed** the finding that US Patent No. 9,591,360 is **unpatentable**, entering final judgment in favor of Hulu, LLC. No damages were awarded to SITO Mobile. The case is now closed, with the patent’s validity permanently compromised by the cancellation or invalidity finding affirmed on appeal.

Key Legal Issues

The controlling legal issue was **patentability**—specifically, an invalidity or cancellation action against the ‘360 patent. In the streaming technology context, media routing patents frequently face validity challenges grounded in:

• • Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103): Prior art in network routing, content delivery networks (CDNs), and adaptive bitrate streaming is voluminous. Patent challengers routinely combine references to argue that media routing innovations represent predictable combinations of known techniques.
• • Patent-Eligibility (35 U.S.C. § 101): Media routing methods implemented in software remain vulnerable to Alice/Mayo challenges, particularly where claims are characterized as abstract ideas of directing data without a sufficiently inventive technical implementation.

The per curiam Rule 36 disposition means the Federal Circuit declined to publish its reasoning, indicating the panel viewed the lower tribunal’s invalidity analysis as legally sound on its face. For practitioners, this signals the invalidity grounds were well-supported and the appeal lacked a compelling legal question warranting extended analysis.