Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of SITO Mobile’s Streaming Patent Against Hulu
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 | 22-1991 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from District Court |
| Duration | Jul 2022 – Apr 2024 1 year 9 months |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Patent Invalid |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Hulu Streaming Platform |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Intellectual property assertion entities focused on monetizing mobile and streaming media patents.
🛡️ Defendant
Major subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) platform and subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company.
Patents at Issue
This case centered on U.S. Patent No. 10,009,637 B2, covering a “system and method for routing media” — technology directly relevant to how modern streaming platforms deliver content to consumers. This patent was registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and claimed methods and systems for directing media content across networks.
- • US 10,009,637 B2 — System and method for routing media
Designing a similar product?
Check if your streaming media routing design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit issued a clean affirmance — “ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED” — sustaining the lower tribunal’s finding that U.S. Patent No. 10,009,637 B2 is unpatentable. No damages were awarded to SITO Mobile, as the invalidity finding eliminated any infringement liability.
Key Legal Issues
The Federal Circuit’s analysis affirmed the lower tribunal’s determination of unpatentability, likely stemming from challenges under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, or 103. This outcome highlights the rigorous scrutiny streaming media patents face, particularly regarding subject matter eligibility under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014). This ruling has significant implications for how streaming media patent validity is assessed in federal proceedings.
Patentability Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in streaming media patents. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand Patent Validity Trends
Learn about specific invalidity risks for streaming patents.
- View all related patents in streaming media technology
- See which companies are most active in streaming patents
- Understand *Alice* and prior art challenges
🔍 Assess My IP’s Patentability
Run a comprehensive patentability analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your invention description or technical features
- AI identifies relevant prior art and eligibility risks
- Get actionable patentability assessment report
Invalidity Affirmed
Broad media routing patents at risk
1 Patent at Issue
US 10,009,637 B2
Stronger Defenses
Against similar assertion entities
✅ Key Takeaways
Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of US10009637B2, eliminating SITO Mobile’s streaming patent claims against Hulu.
Search related Federal Circuit cases →Invalidity/cancellation actions remain a powerful and complete defense in streaming media patent disputes.
Explore *Alice* precedents →Appellate affirmances of invalidity findings carry collateral estoppel risk for multi-defendant assertion campaigns.
Understand collateral estoppel →Frequently Asked Questions
The dispute centered on U.S. Patent No. 10,009,637 B2 (Application No. 15/693,811), covering a system and method for routing media — technology relevant to streaming content delivery architectures.
The case was resolved on invalidity/cancellation grounds. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower tribunal’s determination that the patent failed to meet patentability requirements, though specific invalidity theories were not detailed in the available case record.
The affirmance signals Federal Circuit alignment with invalidity findings against broadly claimed media routing patents, potentially influencing litigation strategy, licensing valuations, and assertion decisions across the OTT streaming sector.
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 22-1991
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — US 10,009,637 B2
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103
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.