The case had come before the CAFC in 2022, and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California at that time affirmed in part and vacated in part. It remanded to the district court for further proceedings after the CAFC determined that the term “buffer” in Claim 16 of Sound View’s U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 cannot cover “a cache,” and thus vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement for Hulu. On appeal to the CAFC again, the CAFC found that the district court “(1) erred in its construction of the claimed term ‘buffer,’ but (2) correctly construed claim 16 to require a specific order of operation.” Because the second ground independently supported the summary judgment grant, the CAFC affirmed the decision. Here, said the CAFC, pointing to the claim language:“Grammatically, ‘a request for an SM object’ in the first limitation provides an antecedent basis for ‘said requested SM object” in the second.