CAFC Affirms Non-Infringement Ruling for Hulu Due to Claim's Requirement of Specific Order of Steps

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision affirming a district court decision that Sound View Innovations' multimedia streaming patent claims were not infringed because Hulu's "accused products do not perform the claim limitations in the required sequence." The decision was authored by Judge Chen. The case had come before the CAFC in 2022, and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California at that time affirmed in part and vacated in part."

"It remanded to the district court for further proceedings after the CAFC determined that the term "buffer" in Claim 16 of Sound View's U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 cannot cover "a cache," and thus vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement for Hulu. The CAFC explained that "[i]t appears that 'buffer' should be given the ordinary meaning proposed by Sound View here and in the district court based on a dictionary definition: 'temporary storage for data being sent or received.'""

"On remand, the district court construed "buffer" to mean "short term storage associated with said requested [Streaming Media] SM object." It ultimately granted summary judgment of non-infringement for Hulu again. On appeal to the CAFC again, the CAFC found that the district court "(1) erred in its construction of the claimed term 'buffer,' but (2) correctly construed claim 16 to require a specific order of operation." Because the second ground independently supported the summary judgment grant, the CAFC affirmed the decision."

An appellate court affirmed summary judgment that Sound View Innovations' multimedia streaming patent claims were not infringed because Hulu's accused products do not perform claim limitations in the claimed order. On earlier appeal the court vacated part of a district court ruling, concluding 'buffer' cannot cover 'a cache' and suggesting the ordinary dictionary meaning 'temporary storage for data being sent or received.' On remand the district court adopted a different 'buffer' construction but again granted noninfringement. The appellate court found the district court erred in construing 'buffer' but correctly held that claim 16 requires a specific sequence, supporting affirmation.

Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law