CAFC-DCTOctober 14, 2026·25-1038·AFFIRMED
PIRANHA MEDIA DISTRIBUTION LLC v. HULU, LLC
District Court
Holding
Our summary of this decision is on its way. The full opinion is linked below.
Why It Matters
Review the linked PDF before publication. The extracted conclusion below is included for audit.
Key Points
- conclusion that claim 1 does not contain an inventive concept. In sum, claim 1 does not contain an inventive concept under Mayo/Alice step two. C. We do not reach whether the Board decision has any preclusive effect. The district court explicitly did not rely on preclusion and instead considered the Board decision only "to the extent that the [c]ourt [found] the reasoning persuasive and relevant to the analysis of the '403 patent." Decision at 934. Appellate courts generally do not reach alternative arguments "that were not the basis for the de- cision below." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 379 n.5 (1996). Accordingly, we do not reach this issue. III. CONCLUSION We have considered Piranha's remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. AFFIRMED
New to Patent prosecution? See our Patent prosecution page
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026In re Medical Components, Inc.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 25, 2026Receivership Estate of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 21, 2026BERKELEY*IEOR v. W.W. Grainger Inc.
- Fed. Cir. · Aug. 31, 2026Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc.