Innovation Tech Partners LP v. Hulu LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Innovation Technologies Partners LP (Texas)
  • Defendant: Hulu, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-10969, C.D. Cal., 11/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Hulu is headquartered in the Central District of California, is subject to personal jurisdiction, and the alleged acts of infringement occurred in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s media streaming service infringes eight patents related to dynamic content delivery, targeted advertising, and digital rights management (DRM).
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the technological underpinnings of modern video streaming services, specifically methods for dynamically inserting advertisements, managing content access rights, and utilizing user data for ad targeting.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that several of the asserted patents—specifically the ’808, ’972, ’831, and ’912 Patents—were amended during prosecution to overcome patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These amendments focused on grounding the inventions in specific technical components, such as processors, device capabilities (CPU, network, storage), and the division of computational tasks, which may become a central issue in defining the scope of the claims.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-04-30	Earliest Priority Date (’539, '972, '831, '912, ’070 Patents)
2008-07-23	Earliest Priority Date ('808 Patent)
2012-07-20	Earliest Priority Date (’157 Patent)
2014-02-25	'539 Patent Issued
2014-07-29	'808 Patent Issued
2016-05-31	'157 Patent Issued
2017-09-27	Earliest Priority Date (’003 Patent)
2019-01-29	'972 Patent Issued
2020-09-15	'831 Patent Issued
2021-03-09	'003 Patent Issued
2023-03-07	'912 Patent Issued
2024-10-22	'070 Patent Issued
2025-11-07	Plaintiff allegedly sent pre-suit notification letter to Hulu
2025-11-14	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,793,808 - “Dynamic Media Zones Systems and Methods”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section, as described in the complaint, addresses the shortcomings of prior systems that "hardcoded" requirements for viewing advertisements or warnings into the system architecture, which provided no visibility into whether those requirements were honored by the user's device (Compl. ¶22; ’808 Patent, col. 1:45-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for dynamically controlling electronic content by creating a "zone map" that defines distinct sections within the content (Compl. ¶19). An electronic license is associated with the content, which contains a "control program" that can impose obligations, such as requiring an advertisement to be played before a user can view the main content (Compl. ¶20). This allows access rules to be dynamically inserted and governed by policies specified by a content author or distributor (’808 Patent, col. 1:51-65).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for flexible and verifiable enforcement of access rules for digital content, a departure from rigid, hardcoded systems (Compl. ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 5 (Compl. ¶79, 82).
• Claim 5 recites a method of packaging electronic content, comprising the essential elements of:
  • Creating, using a processor, a first zone map defining a plurality of zones in a first piece of electronic content;
  • Associating an electronic license with the content, where the license includes at least one control program;
  • The control program being operable to determine that a predefined condition associated with a first zone is met;
  • After the condition is met, the control program imposes a first obligation on access to or use of the first zone; and
  • The first obligation includes a requirement that the first zone be played prior to playing at least a first part of the first piece of electronic content.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but this is standard practice.

U.S. Patent No. 8,660,539 - “Data Collection and Targeted Advertising Systems and Methods”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the shortcomings of prior systems for collecting user data, such as tracking website downloads or text message delivery, which provided inaccurate or insufficiently granular information about how users actually consume content (’539 Patent, col. 1:24-47).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server system that receives usage statistics that have been signed with a secret key from a user's device (Compl. ¶24). This user activity is tracked in accordance with a license enforced by a digital rights management (DRM) engine on the device (Compl. ¶24). The server verifies the signed statistics, classifies the user into interest categories, and recommends targeted advertisements based on that classification (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24; ’539 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This method provides a more secure and reliable way to gather detailed user interaction data, which in turn allows for more accurate user profiling and more effective targeted advertising (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶112, 115).
• Claim 1 recites a server system for collecting usage statistics and recommending targeted advertisements, programmed to:
  • Receive usage statistics signed with a secret key from a user's mobile telecommunications device;
  • The statistics are generated by tracking content usage according to a license enforced by a DRM engine, with the license comprising obligations for the device;
  • The statistics include one or more events from a specified group (e.g., ad played, play/stop events, skipping, etc.);
  • Verify that the usage statistics signed with the secret key were received from the user's device;
  • Classify the user into one or more categories based on the usage statistics; and
  • Recommend targeted advertisements based on the categories into which the user is classified.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,191,972 - “Content Delivery Systems and Methods”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for distributing content where a computing device creates a content license that identifies "slots" for advertisements. The license specifies criteria for selecting ads, including an evaluation of the user device's technical capabilities (e.g., CPU performance, network connectivity, local storage) (Compl. ¶¶ 27-29). The user's device then selects an advertisement to insert by evaluating bids to determine which ad yields the highest revenue for the content provider (Compl. ¶30).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶139).
• Accused Features: Hulu's system of using content licenses and partner guidelines to define "ad pods" or "ad breaks" (slots) in streamed content; selecting ads for these slots based on criteria including device capabilities and revenue generation; and having the user's device render the selected ad (Compl. ¶¶ 143-153).

U.S. Patent No. 10,776,831 - “Content Delivery Systems and Methods”

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method performed by a user's electronic device for rendering content. The device receives a content item and an associated electronic license that identifies insertion slots and specifies criteria for selecting ads (Compl. ¶34). The device itself performs the selection by evaluating content items (ads) against the criteria, evaluating bids against an objective function, and considering its own technical capabilities (e.g., processing performance, network connectivity) (Compl. ¶34).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶169).
• Accused Features: Hulu's streaming service, where the user's electronic device receives content and an electronic license, and then, in adherence with that license, selects and renders dynamically inserted advertisements based on various criteria including revenue and device capabilities (Compl. ¶¶ 173-182).

U.S. Patent No. 11,599,912 - “Content Delivery Systems and Methods”

• Technology Synopsis: The technology is a method performed by an electronic device that receives a content item and license at its network interface. The license identifies insertion slots and criteria for selection. The device then uses an on-board digital rights management engine to select a message (e.g., an advertisement) to insert by evaluating it against criteria and bids to maximize an objective function (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 38).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶199).
• Accused Features: The Hulu streaming service, where a user's device receives content and licenses via its network interface and uses its internal software and DRM mechanisms to select and render dynamically inserted ads based on criteria such as user demographics and revenue (Compl. ¶¶ 203-213).

U.S. Patent No. 12,125,070 - “Content Delivery Systems and Methods”

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for managing content rendering via a trusted proxy service that acts as a "digital peer" for the electronic device. The trusted proxy service receives the electronic license, receives potential advertisements, and uses a DRM engine to select the ad to be inserted based on criteria, bids, and device capabilities (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 42). The proxy service then enables the rendering of the selected ad on the user's device (Compl. ¶42).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶230).
• Accused Features: Hulu's server infrastructure is alleged to function as the claimed "trusted proxy service." It is accused of receiving content licenses, selecting advertisements based on device capabilities and other criteria, and enabling the rendering of those ads on the user's device (Compl. ¶¶ 234-243).

U.S. Patent No. 9,355,157 - “Information Targeting Systems and Methods”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a method performed by a trusted system that receives personal information about a user from a device. Based on this information, it generates a "personal ontology graph" comprising first-level interests derived from inferences (Compl. ¶46). The system then accesses an "interest taxonomy database" to identify and include second-level interests in the graph, and subsequently selects and transmits content to the user's device based on these identified interests (Compl. ¶46).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶260).
• Accused Features: Hulu's backend system is alleged to be the "trusted system." It is accused of collecting personal information to "build a profile" (the personal ontology graph) for users, using a "Data Center" and topic models (the interest taxonomy database) to generate and store user interests, and selecting targeted ads based on those interests (Compl. ¶¶ 265-272).

U.S. Patent No. 10,945,003 - “Dynamic Content Mapping Systems and Methods”

• Technology Synopsis: The technology is a method performed by a content service system. It identifies a user segment (demographic or interest), determines a corresponding content map that specifies content break locations, and maps content into a stream according to that map (Compl. ¶50). The system then generates and transmits first and second test content maps to different user groups, receives response information, compares the responses, and generates a new content map based on the comparison, effectively performing A/B testing to optimize ad placement (Compl. ¶50).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶289).
• Accused Features: Hulu's system for tailoring content streams to user segments based on demographics and interests. It is accused of using "content maps" with break locations, generating test streams for A/B testing to compare user responses against criteria like monetization, and ultimately generating an optimized content map (Compl. ¶¶ 294-302).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Systems and Services" are identified as Hulu's U.S. media streaming platform and service, which includes Hulu's website, application, video player, related software, and the servers and software used to operate the service (Compl. ¶61).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentality provides a media streaming service with over 50 million paid members (Compl. ¶60). Its relevant technical functionality, as described in the complaint, includes:

• Streaming media over the internet using HTTP Live Streaming ("HLS") media formats, which involves ingesting and repackaging video segments (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 83).
• Creating "zone maps" for streamed media through HLS playlists that define media segments and ad insertion points ("Ad Breaks" or "Ad Pods") (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 69, 145). A diagram from an HLS standards document illustrates how content is divided into periods with slots for advertisements (Compl. p. 32, Ex. 10 at 3).
• Controlling content access and use through technological measures, including encryption (AES-128) and rules that can prevent users from skipping advertisements (Compl. ¶¶ 64-65, 93).
• Collecting customer "Usage and Log Data," building user profiles, and using "Collaborative Filtering" to predict user preferences and interests (Compl. ¶¶ 66-67). A diagram illustrates Hulu's architecture, showing a "Data Center" with a "Topic Model" and "Related Topic Tables" used for recommendations (Compl. p. 36, Ex. 13 at 3).
• Dynamically inserting advertisements into streamed content during "Ad Breaks" based on user data and interests (Compl. ¶¶ 68-69).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'808 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method of packaging a first piece of electronic content, the method being performed on a system comprising at least one processor...	Hulu's streaming system, operating on its servers (processors), performs a method of packaging content by ingesting streams and repackaging video segments for its HLS service.	¶83, 85	col. 5:7-9
creating, using the processor, a first zone map defining a plurality of zones in the first piece of electronic content;	Hulu's HLS implementation creates playlists, which the complaint alleges are "zone maps." These playlists define a plurality of "media segments" (i.e., "zones") of set durations, such as for main content and advertisements.	¶86	col. 3:5-13
associating an electronic license with the first piece of electronic content, the license comprising at least one control program, the license defining one or more conditions associated with access to or other use of at least part of the first piece of electronic content on a device...	Hulu uses "electronic licenses" and HLS media formats that govern and control content. These licenses allegedly incorporate a "control program" that enforces terms, including encryption and playback rules.	¶87, 88, 90	col. 3:35-42
the control program being operable, when executed on the device, to determine that a first predefined condition...is met, and, after the first predefined condition is met, to impose a first obligation on access to or other use of the first zone;	The license's control program allegedly imposes obligations, such as requiring users to watch interstitial advertisements. A screenshot from Hulu's help center confirms users on certain plans cannot fast-forward through ads.	¶92, 95; p. 53, Ex. 24 at 2	col. 3:40-49
in which the first obligation includes a requirement that the first zone be played prior to playing at least a first part of the first piece of electronic content.	Hulu's system, through HLS tags like EXT-X-DATERANGE and X-RESTRICT, allegedly imposes an obligation on the customer to play advertisements (the first zone) before continuing to watch their show (the first piece of electronic content).	¶93, 95	col. 4:1-4

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the components of the open HLS standard, such as a "playlist" file defining "media segments," constitute the claimed "zone map" defining "zones" as understood in the patent. Similarly, it raises the question of whether the combination of HLS specifications, encryption keys, and Hulu's terms of service collectively meet the limitations of the claimed "electronic license" comprising a "control program."
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused HLS implementation performs the specific claimed step of a "control program" determining a condition is met before imposing an obligation? The analysis may focus on whether the HLS tags simply declare a static rule (e.g., "this ad is unskippable") versus performing the dynamic two-step logical operation recited in the claim.

'539 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A server system for collecting usage statistics and recommending targeted advertisements...comprising one or more processors adapted and programmed to:	Hulu utilizes a collection of servers ("server system") to collect customer usage statistics and recommend targeted advertisements.	¶116	col. 2:4-6
receive usage statistics signed with a secret key from the user's mobile telecommunications device...	Hulu's servers allegedly receive usage statistics from user devices. The complaint alleges Hulu "uses secret keys to collect data" and that this data is "encrypted."	¶117, 118, 121	col. 2:12-14
by tracking content usage...in accordance with a license associated with at least one piece of electronic content, wherein the license is configured to be enforced by a digital rights management engine...	Hulu's streaming services are governed by digital rights management mechanisms and licenses, which obligate the electronic device to perform specific operations, such as playing an ad in its entirety.	¶119	col. 2:15-20
wherein the usage statistics include one or more types of events selected from the group consisting of: how many times advertisement is played, play/stop events, clicking on an advertisement, skipping forward and/or skipping back...	Hulu's website states that it tracks customers' interactions with advertisements, such as pausing, clicks, and completion rates.	¶120	col. 2:24-34
verify that the usage statistics signed with the secret key were received from the user's mobile telecommunications device;	The complaint alleges that Hulu verifies the customers' encrypted usage statistics that were received from the customer's electronic device.	¶121	col. 2:35-38
classify, according to the usage statistics, the user...into one or more categories with varying degrees of affinity; and	Hulu builds a user profile and uses "Collaborative Filtering" to analyze user behaviors and generate "Related Tables" that predict user preferences and classify them into interest categories.	¶67	col. 2:39-42
recommend targeted advertisements...based in part on the one or more categories into which the user...is classified.	Based on the collected data and user interest profiles, Hulu's system recommends and presents targeted advertisements to users as they stream content.	¶68, 116	col. 2:43-47

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The pivotal issue may be the claim requirement for "usage statistics signed with a secret key" and the server's subsequent step to "verify that the usage statistics signed with the secret key were received." The complaint makes these allegations but primarily cites privacy policies and marketing materials. The case may turn on whether Hulu's data collection architecture actually performs these specific cryptographic signing and verification steps, as opposed to more general data encryption for security or privacy.
  • Scope Questions: Does the term "mobile telecommunications device" in the context of the patent, which issued in 2014, read on the broad range of modern streaming devices like smart TVs and laptops, in addition to phones? The complaint alleges the patent broadly defines the term, which the court will need to evaluate (Compl. ¶116).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "zone map" ('808 Patent)
• Context and Importance: This term's definition is critical because the complaint equates an HLS "playlist" file with the claimed "zone map." The defense may argue that a "zone map" requires specific structural or functional properties taught in the patent that are absent in a standard HLS playlist. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's § 101 prosecution history, which emphasized specific technical improvements, could inform a narrower construction than what the complaint alleges.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent may describe a "zone" generally as a portion of a media presentation (Compl. ¶19), which could support interpreting any file that demarcates content segments (like an HLS playlist) as a "zone map."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and specific embodiments in the patent may describe the "zone map" as being part of a specific DRM framework or having a particular data structure (e.g., the ZoneMap structure with internalZones and externalZones shown in the patent's TABLE 0) that differs from a standard HLS playlist.
• The Term: "usage statistics signed with a secret key" ('539 Patent)
• Context and Importance: This is the central technical limitation of the asserted '539 claim. The infringement case hinges on whether Hulu's data collection involves this specific cryptographic action. A broad construction might cover general data encryption, while a narrow one would require proof of a specific digital signature process for verifying data origin and integrity.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background may broadly discuss the need for reliable data, potentially allowing Plaintiff to argue that any cryptographic method ensuring data integrity (not just a formal digital signature) falls within the claim's scope.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification likely provides details on how the "signing" and "verifying" steps operate. If it describes a specific public/private key infrastructure or a challenge-response mechanism, it would support a narrower definition that may not be met by standard transport-layer encryption used for privacy.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The inducement allegations are based on Hulu's user guides, terms of service, and developer documentation, which allegedly instruct customers and partners to use the accused services in a manner that performs the steps of the method claims (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 103, 106, 130).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from a notification letter Plaintiff sent to Hulu on November 7, 2025, one week before filing the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 75).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope and prosecution history estoppel: can terms rooted in a specific DRM context, such as "zone map" and "control program" ('808 Patent), be construed broadly enough to cover functionalities of an open standard like HLS? The amendments made to overcome § 101 rejections may limit the scope of these terms to the specific technical implementations argued to the USPTO, creating a significant hurdle for the infringement allegations.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of cryptographic function: for the '539 Patent, does Hulu's system for collecting user data perform the specific function of digitally signing statistics on the client-side and verifying that signature on the server-side, as required by the claim, or does it use standard encryption for data privacy and transmission security, which may not meet the claim's requirements?
• A central architectural question will be the mapping of claimed systems to real-world infrastructure: can Plaintiff demonstrate that Hulu's distributed server architecture functions as the specific "trusted proxy service" claimed in the '070 Patent, or that its user profiling and A/B testing systems practice every element of the methods claimed in the '157 and '003 Patents, respectively?