Streaming Patent Battles: Implicit Ordering and the Future of IP Litigation
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC (January 29, 2026) underscores a critical nuance in patent law: the implicit ordering of method steps. Whereas patent claims don’t always explicitly dictate the sequence of actions, courts are increasingly willing to find that a specific order is required by the language itself – a matter of both logic and grammar. This ruling has significant implications for patent drafting and future intellectual property litigation, particularly in the fast-evolving world of streaming technology.
The Core of the Ruling: Beyond Explicit Sequencing
Traditionally, courts have held that method claim steps require a specific order only when the claim language explicitly states it. However, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that an order can be implied when the claim language, “as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written.” In the Sound View v. Hulu case, claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 hinged on the sequential performance of its initial two steps.
The court specifically rejected the argument that ordering should only be implied if performing steps out of order would render the process entirely inoperable. Instead, the focus is on “inherent logical dependencies or functional relationships” between the steps. This represents a crucial distinction, suggesting a lower threshold for establishing implicit ordering than previously understood.
Drafting Implications: Avoiding Unintended Constraints
This decision serves as a potent reminder for patent practitioners. Simply avoiding numbered steps or explicit ordering language isn’t a guaranteed way to prevent a court from finding an implicit requirement. The way elements are referenced across multiple steps can inadvertently create dependencies.
Phrases like “said requested [object],” “said processed [object],” or “said received [object]” can be interpreted as references to outcomes of earlier, completed steps. These seemingly innocuous constructions can impose a grammatical and logical prerequisite, effectively dictating the order of operations. Careful wording is paramount.
The Broader Trend: Increased Scrutiny of Method Claims
The Sound View v. Hulu case isn’t an isolated event. It reflects a broader trend of increased scrutiny of method claims by the Federal Circuit. Courts are becoming more adept at identifying subtle cues within claim language that reveal an intended order, even when that order isn’t explicitly stated. This trend is likely to continue as technology becomes more complex and the nuances of process claims develop into more critical.
The case as well highlights the challenges faced by patent holders seeking to enforce their rights in the streaming space. As evidenced by the Hulu case [2, 3, 5], defending against infringement claims often centers on demonstrating that the accused process doesn’t adhere to the precise order dictated by the patent claims.
Future Litigation Strategies: Focusing on Logical Dependencies
Going forward, patent litigation strategies will likely shift to emphasize the identification and articulation of logical dependencies between claim steps. Litigants will need to demonstrate, not just that a different order is technically possible, but that the claim language itself creates a prerequisite for a specific sequence. This will require a deeper dive into the grammar and structure of patent claims, as well as a thorough understanding of the underlying technology.
Expect to notice more arguments centered on the inherent functionality of the claimed process. Demonstrating that a particular step logically builds upon the outcome of a previous step will be key to establishing implicit ordering.
Pro Tip:
When drafting method claims, consider using conditional language (“if…then…”) to explicitly define dependencies between steps. This can assist avoid ambiguity and reduce the risk of unintended ordering requirements.
FAQ
Q: Does this ruling indicate all method claims will be subject to implicit ordering analysis?
A: No, the analysis applies when the claim language, through grammar or logic, inherently requires a specific order.
Q: What’s the best way to avoid implicit ordering issues in patent drafting?
A: Use clear, unambiguous language and avoid referencing elements in a way that implies a prior step has been completed.
Q: How does this case impact existing patents?
A: It provides a new lens through which to interpret existing method claims, potentially impacting enforceability.
Q: Is explicit numbering of steps always the best approach?
A: Not necessarily. While it provides clarity, it can also limit the scope of the claim. Careful consideration is needed.
Did you know? The Federal Circuit’s emphasis on “logical dependencies” means that even seemingly minor wording choices can have a significant impact on patent validity and enforceability.
To learn more about patent claim drafting and litigation strategies, contact us today.
