Federal Circuit: Hulu's Streaming Technology Doesn't Infringe Based On Implicit Order Of Steps In Method Claim

The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion last week addressing how courts should interpret the ordering of steps in method claims, affirming that grammatical structure and logical dependencies in the claims can mandate a specific sequence even without explicit ordering language.

In Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, decided January 29, 2026, the court upheld summary judgment of noninfringement, holding that claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 (the "'213 patent") requires its first two steps to be performed in order—a requirement Hulu's accused products did not meet.

Background

The now-expired '213 patent covers methods for streaming multimedia content over networks using intermediate "helper servers" to cache and distribute content more efficiently. Sound View alleged that Hulu infringed claim 16 by directing third-party edge servers (the claimed "helper servers" or HSs) to perform every step of the asserted claim.

This was the second time the case reached the Federal Circuit. In the first appeal (Hulu I), the court affirmed certain claim constructions but remanded for the district court to properly define the term "buffer." On remand, the district court granted summary judgment on two grounds: the accused products used general-purpose rather than specialized buffers (based on the court's construction for "buffer"), and they didn't perform the claim steps in the required order.

The Ordering Issue

Claim 16's first two steps recite:

1."receiving a request for an SM [streaming media] object from one of said plurality of clients"

2."allocating a buffer at one of said plurality of HSs [helper servers] to cache at least a portion of said requested SM object"

The critical question was whether these steps must occur sequentially. Neither party disputed that Hulu's products don't perform them in this order.

The Court's Analysis

Writing for a unanimous panel, Circuit Judge Chen applied the established rule that method claim steps don't ordinarily require ordering unless "the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written."

The court found both grammar and logic compelled sequential ordering. Grammatically, the first step establishes "a request for an SM object" as theantecedentbasis for "said requested SM object" in the second step. Thus, the past participle "requested" functions as both an adjective and a status indicator reflecting a prior completed action.

The court reasoned that "requested" describes a logical relationship: a request must occur before an object can be characterized as "requested." As the court explained, "The buffer cannot be allocated to cache a 'requested' SM object if no request has been received."

Sound View's Failed Arguments

Sound View advanced three strategies to argue the steps could happen in any order, but the court rejected each one.

Different claims, different structures

: Sound View pointed to other claims in the same patent that use explicit numbering or phrases like "upon receiving" to indicate order. The court said these claims simply use different methods to indicate ordering, and their absence in claim 16 doesn't mean no ordering exists.

The impossibility test

: Sound View argued ordering should only be required when performing steps out of sequence would be physically impossible and that it wasn't impossible here to perform step 2 before step 1. The court clarified that impossibility isn't the standard—rather, the court's analysis should simply focus on any "inherent logical dependencies or functional relationships between the recited steps"—which existed in this case— in determining whether they require sequential performance.

The embodiment loophole

: Sound View also cited Figure 7B in the specification, which it claimed showed a pre-allocated buffer (Step 2) being used before receiving a request (Step 1) in one of the patent's various embodiments. The court, however, found that this figure generally addressed a different aspect of the invention (data transfer rate control) and didn't describe the allocation process relevant to claim 16's disputed steps.

The Buffer Issue

Though not necessary to its holding, the court also addressed whether claim 16 requires a "specialized" buffer associated with only one streaming media [SM] object. The district court had construed "buffer" to mean "short term storage associated with said requested SM object" and found this required a specialized, single-purpose buffer.

The Federal Circuit disagreed, holding the district court erred in this construction. Applying the ordinary meaning of "buffer" as "temporary storage for data being sent or received," the court found nothing in the claim language or specification clearly indicated a deviation from this standard meaning. The specification's references to specialized structures like "ring buffers" and "buffer pools" were structurally distinct and didn't disclaim the ordinary meaning of "buffer" in claim 16.

Conclusion

This decision reinforces important principles for patent litigation and drafting with respect to method claims:

For litigants

: With respect claim construction, the ruling demonstrates that implicit ordering can arise from grammatical relationships between claim limitations, particularly when later steps reference the completed results of earlier steps through terms like "requested," "selected," or "provided." Arguments based solely on the absence of ordering language in one claim compared to another may face an uphill battle if the grammar and logic of the claim at issue establish dependencies between steps.

For patent prosecutors

: The decision highlights the importance of carefully considering whether method claims should use explicit ordering language or whether grammatical structure alone will suffice to effectuate the patentee's intent regarding the invention. Prosecutors should also be aware that courts may find that different claims in the same patent may legitimately use different mechanisms to convey ordering requirements.

The decision also serves as a reminder that specification embodiments showing variations or optimizations of a claimed process don't necessarily override the plain language of the claim itself, particularly when those embodiments primarily address different aspects of the invention.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.