Implicit Ordering in Method Claims: Lessons from Sound View Innovations v. Hulu

2.19.26

Case Overview 

n Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, decided January 29, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement, holding that claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 requires its first two method steps to be performed in sequence. The decision offers important guidance on when courts will find implicit ordering requirements in method claims, even absent explicit sequential language. 

The Implicit Ordering Analysis 

The Federal Circuit reaffirmed the general principle that method claim steps are not ordinarily construed to require a particular order unless the claim language explicitly recites one. However, the court emphasized an important exception to this general principle: necessary ordering of claim steps may be implied when “the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written.” The Court held that both grammar and logic in this case implicitly required the steps follow the recited order.  

Notably, the Court found unpersuasive Sound View’s argument that ordering can only be implied if performing the steps out of order would render the process wholly inoperable but was not successful. As the Court held, the proper inquiry is, instead whether there are “inherent logical dependencies or functional relationships between the recited steps.” The question is not whether the steps could technically occur in a different order, but whether the claim language itself creates a grammatical and logical prerequisite. 

Implications for Patent Practitioners 

This decision provides some important drafting reminders. For example, this case is a reminder that practitioners should not assume that refraining from numbering or expressly ordering the steps of a claim will automatically avoid an inference that the steps must be performed in order. 

Practitioners are further reminded to be careful whether referencing elements in multiple method steps implies a particular structure or order to the method. References that imply a particular prior step has been completed. Statements such as “said requested [object],” “said processed [object],” or “said received [object]” may be interpreted as referring to outcomes of earlier completed steps and, therefore, may create grammatical dependencies that impose a required order. 

Andrew Ball | Associate Attorney