Federal Circuit Invalidates SITO Mobile’s Media Routing Patent Against Hulu

📄 View Full Report 📥 Export PDF 🔗 Share ⭐ Save

📋 Case Summary

Case NameSITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC and SITO Mobile, Ltd. v. Hulu, LLC
Case Number22-1927 (Fed. Cir.)
CourtFederal Circuit, Appeal from PTAB Final Written Decision
DurationJune 23, 2022 – April 5, 2024 652 days
OutcomeDefendant Win — Claims Unpatentable
Patents at Issue
Accused ProductsHulu 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.

Run FTO Check →

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
📊 View Patent Landscape
⚠️
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

For Patent Attorneys & Litigators

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 →
🔒
Unlock R&D Team Recommendations for Media Technology
Get actionable IP strategy steps for product teams developing streaming and content delivery systems, including FTO timing guidance and defense strategies.
PTAB Defense Strategies Claim Differentiation Early FTO for Streaming
Explore Full Analysis in PatSnap Eureka

Frequently Asked Questions

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.

📊 2B+ Patent Data Points 🌍 120+ Countries Covered 🏢 18,000+ Customers Worldwide ⚖️ Global Litigation Database 🔍 Primary Source Verified

References

  1. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Case 22-1927
  2. U.S. Patent No. 9,135,635 B2 on Google Patents
  3. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) E2E System
  4. 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.

⚖️ Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and general legal principles. For specific advice regarding patent litigation, FTO analysis, or IP strategy, please consult a qualified patent attorney.