SITO Mobile v. Hulu: Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Media Routing Patent
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC v. Hulu, LLC |
| Case Number | 22-2262 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from PTAB |
| Duration | Sep 2022 – Apr 2024 1 year 7 months |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Patent Invalidated |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Hulu’s streaming platform and its underlying media routing infrastructure |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
IP holding entity affiliated with SITO Mobile, Ltd., involved in mobile advertising and media delivery technologies.
🛡️ Defendant
One of the United States’ largest subscription streaming platforms, offering on-demand video content to millions of subscribers.
Patents at Issue
This landmark case involved a foundational utility patent covering a “system and method for routing media,” which shaped discussions around digital streaming infrastructure. Utility patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect functional inventions rather than ornamental appearance.
- • US9026673B2 — System and method for routing media
Developing media routing technology?
Check if your streaming platform or content delivery system might infringe similar patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit **affirmed** the lower tribunal’s finding that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,026,673 B2 are unpatentable. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was issued — consistent with a validity-based termination where infringement liability is mooted by cancellation of the asserted patent.
Key Legal Issues
The case turned entirely on **patentability** — not infringement. The appellate court reviewed factual findings underlying patentability determinations for **substantial evidence**, affirming the ‘Unpatentable’ basis, which likely arose from challenges grounded in 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) or 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness).
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in media routing technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this invalidity ruling.
- Explore related prior art in media routing
- See which companies are most active in media delivery patents
- Understand patentability challenges for broad claims
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Invalidity Risk
For broad media routing claims
Crowded Prior Art
In media delivery sector
Clearer FTO Path
For well-distinguished tech
✅ Key Takeaways
Federal Circuit affirmance of PTAB unpatentability findings remains highly probable when supported by strong prior art records.
Search related PTAB decisions →Validity-first defense strategies through IPR are increasingly preferred over district court invalidity defenses in media technology cases.
Explore IPR strategies →Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Patent No. 9,026,673 B2 (Application No. US13/841,126), covering a system and method for routing media.
The Federal Circuit affirmed a prior patentability determination — most likely from a PTAB proceeding — finding the patent’s claims did not meet the statutory requirements for patentability, based on prior art grounds.
It reinforces the IPR-to-Federal-Circuit appellate strategy as an effective defense against media patent assertions, and signals that broadly claimed media routing patents face heightened invalidity risk.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Case 22-2262
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Center (US9026673B2)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Anticipation)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Obviousness)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.