Posts in Circuit Courts of Appeal

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion in Malone v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office affirming the Eastern District of Virginia’s grant of summary judgment to the USPTO after finding that the agency properly withheld documents sought by US Inventor’s Josh Malone pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request related to administrative patent judge (APJ) paneling at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Fourth Circuit found that decision drafts circulated to nonpanel APJs were subject to FOIA’s exemption for predecisional and deliberative documents and were not unprotected ex parte communications.

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari to a petition brought by internet service provider (ISP) Grande Communications Networks LLC, appealing from a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision that upheld a jury verdict holding Grande Communications liable for contributory infringement against a group of major U.S. record labels. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and then vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration under the Court’s recent opinion in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment.

The U.S. government filed its brief in opposition yesterday to Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb Company’s (BMS) petition for writ of certiorari challenging the government’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. A split U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decision  in September 2025 affirmed a grant of summary judgment to the government that the imposition of the Program via the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) does not violate the companies’ constitutional rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, ruling that internet service provider Cox Communications, Inc., is not contributorily liable for its subscribers’ copyright infringement. In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Court held that a service provider is contributorily liable for a user’s infringement only when it intended for its service to be used in that way, which is established only if the provider either encouraged the infringement or designed the service specifically to facilitate it.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied certiorari in Zioness Movement, Inc. v. The Lawfare Project, Inc., a case in which Zioness Movement sought review of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision that upheld a jury verdict allowing two competing nonprofit entities to co-own the “Zioness” trademark.

In December 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that service of two China-based defendants by email violated the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638, also known as the “Hague Convention,” and therefore was not permitted under Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Smart Study Co. v. Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi, U.S. App. LEXIS 33039, at *1 (2d Cir. Dec. 18, 2025).   While the Second Circuit looked at whether the Hague Convention explicitly identifies email as a permitted method of service, the proper question is whether the Hague Convention prohibits service by email.

Whether the plaintiff has adequately identified the trade secrets that have allegedly been misappropriated is a commonly litigated and critical issue under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). Unlike other types of intellectual property—such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks—where the property has already been identified and registered, trade secrets by definition are secret and cannot be identified publicly without destroying the subject matter of the plaintiff’s legal claim. Yet defendants still need to know what secrets they have allegedly misappropriated, and the court needs to know what the case is about.

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruling upholding the federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)’s drug price negotiation program has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of many challenges to the Act’s constitutionality. The IRA requires drugmakers to sell selected patented drugs to the government for its Medicare Parts B & D programs at a stipulated “maximum fair price”. If they don’t agree to these prices, then they face tax penalties on sales of the drug exceeding their profits from it, or the exclusion of all their drugs from Medicare and Medicaid purchases. This would foreclose access to up to 160 million patients, accounting for around 40% of US prescription drug spending or 20% of global prescription drug spending. US government purchases are valued at $200 billion annually.

On Friday, January 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a ruling in Allen v. Stein that likely ends a decade-long copyright battle over documentary footage of a state-sponsored salvage project exhuming a shipwreck associated with the famed pirate Blackbeard. Reversing and vacating rulings by the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Fourth Circuit found that an erroneous legal standard was used in allowing Allen to pursue a new theory for his copyright claims, remanding the case to the district court with directions to dismiss Allen’s complaint with prejudice.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Paramount Pictures Corporation in a copyright and contract dispute brought by the heirs of the author of the 1983 magazine article that inspired the original Top Gun film. Shosh Yonay and Yuval Yonay, the widow and son of Ehud Yonay, first brought claims against Paramount in 2022, alleging that the sequel Top Gun: Maverick infringed on the copyright of Ehud Yonay’s article, “Top Guns.” The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 2024 granted summary judgment for Paramount, agreeing that Maverick did not share “substantial amounts of the article’s original expression and that the depicted pilots and their experiences were factual and therefore unprotected by copyright law.

What do affiliated corporate entities, non-fungible token (NFTs) and cinnamon-flavored whiskey have in common? They each were the subject of significant trademark rulings in 2025. Below, we review three cases with big implications for trademark law and what’s on the horizon for 2026.  

Companies face substantial liability for trade secret misappropriation. Jury awards this year have reached staggering amounts…. On November 21, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Computer Sciences Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., __ 5th Cir. __, 2025 WL 3249148 (5th Cir. 2025), affirmed $56 million in compensatory damages, $112 million in punitive damages, a permanent injunction, and a 10-year monitorship against TCS… The Computer Sciences decision provides critical guidance on trade secret handling under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), clarifies what constitutes “willful and malicious” misappropriation, and establishes that exemplary damages may be awarded even where the plaintiff suffers no harm beyond lost profits.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Tuesday dismissed an appeal from Zuru Inc. in its ongoing copyright and trademark dispute with the Lego group, finding that the court lacked appellate jurisdiction. Lego A/S, Lego Systems, Inc., and Lego Juris A/S first brought claims against Zuru Inc. in 2019, alleging that Zuru’s “First-Generation” toy figurines infringed on the copyright and trademark rights of Lego’s Minifigure. The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted Lego’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which enjoined Zuru from manufacturing or selling the infringing First-Generation figurines and “any figurine or image that is substantially similar to the Minifigure Copyrights or likely to be confused with the Minifigure Trademarks.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday affirmed a district court’s decision to grant a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a trademark dispute between two tech companies, IYO, Inc., and IO Products, Inc, which merged with OpenAI in May 2025. The order prevents IO, a company co-founded by Sam Altman and Jonathan Paul Ive, from using the IO mark in connection with products that are related to IYO’s AI-based “audio computer.”