Federal Circuit Invalidates SITO Mobile’s Media Routing 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 and SITO Mobile, Ltd. v. Hulu, LLC |
| Case Number | 22-1927 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from PTAB Final Written Decision |
| Duration | June 23, 2022 – April 5, 2024 652 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Claims Unpatentable |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Hulu Streaming Platform / Media Delivery Systems |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Intellectual property holding and licensing entities focused on mobile and digital media technologies, leveraging its IP portfolio against digital media platforms.
🛡️ Defendant
Leading subscription video-on-demand streaming service, co-owned by The Walt Disney Company, operating a significant content delivery platform.
The Patent at Issue
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.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
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.
Key Legal Issues
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:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
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
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own media routing or streaming technology.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Broad software/media routing claims
Patent Invalidated
1 patent (14 claims) found unpatentable
Defense Strategies
PTAB remains an effective tool
✅ Key Takeaways
Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB’s unpatentability finding for 14 claims of US9135635B2 in *SITO Mobile v. Hulu* (Case No. 22-1927).
Search related case law →Post-grant proceedings (IPR, PGR) remain the dominant defense strategy against media technology patent assertions.
Explore precedents →PTAB factual findings receive deferential review; building a strong evidentiary record at the board level is decisive.
Learn more about PTAB strategy →Content delivery and media routing architectures should be developed with documented technical differentiation from prior art.
Start FTO analysis for my product →IPR vulnerability of competitor patents can inform both FTO strategy and competitive positioning for your streaming solutions.
Try AI patent drafting →Frequently Asked 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.
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.
PatSnap IP Intelligence Team
Patent Research & Competitive Intelligence · PatSnap
This analysis was produced by the PatSnap IP Intelligence Team — a group of patent analysts, IP strategists, and data scientists who work daily with PatSnap’s global patent database of over 2 billion structured data points across patents, litigation records, scientific literature, and regulatory filings.
The team specialises in tracking landmark litigation outcomes, translating complex court rulings into actionable IP strategy, and identifying the competitive intelligence implications for R&D and legal teams. All case analysis is grounded in primary sources: official court records, USPTO filings, and Federal Circuit opinions.
References
- 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 — 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.
📑 Table of Contents
🚀 PatSnap Eureka IP Tools
🔍Novelty Search
Find prior art instantly
Patent Drafting
AI-assisted claim writing
FTO Analysis
Assess infringement risk
Concerned About Your Product?
Don’t wait for litigation. Check your product’s freedom to operate now with AI-powered analysis.
Run FTO for My Product