Posts in US Supreme Court

Gilbert Hyatt is a prolific independent inventor known for his large number of patent applications held up for decades at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the courts. In its decisions in Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F. 3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Hyatt I) and Hyatt v. Stewart, 148 F. 4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (Hyatt II), the Federal Circuit held that he forfeited his patent rights under the prosecution laches doctrine

At a recent Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing, Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter noted that Congress may need to overturn this year’s unanimous decision in the Cox v. Sony Supreme Court case or create a new “site blocking” regime to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to certain internet sites. The only problem? To put it bluntly, she is wrong.

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued its decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., holding that Amarin failed to “plausibly allege” that Hikma actively induced infringement of its “icosapent ethyl” product,  marketed as Vascepa. The decision, which was originally seen as a so-called skinny label case applying narrowly to the pharmaceutical industry and Hatch-Waxman litigation, scolded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for its recent approach and has potentially far-reaching implications for the induced infringement standard across sectors.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) this week filed a reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Pauline Newman. The reply brief responded directly to the opposition brief filed by the Solicitor General, representing the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit, on May 12, which urged the Court to deny review of Newman’s petition.

On Friday, a series of computer and automotive industry trade organizations representing most of the top filers of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to grant Google’s petition for writ of certiorari that ultimately challenges the PTAB’s settled expectations doctrine as developed under the current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) administration.

There’s a great deal of excitement and preparation for the Olympic Games, which will come to Los Angeles and Oklahoma City in 2028. Those of us in Oklahoma City are thrilled to host two events on behalf of LA28, softball and canoe slalom. If you are a business owner in one of these cities, you may be thinking, “How can I capitalize on the Olympic Games coming to my city?” This is the first of several helpful articles in which we will walk you through the myriad of legal issues and opportunities associated with hosting the Olympic Games.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires on Tuesday, May 26, filed a Brief in Opposition to Gilbert Hyatt’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which asks the Court to review—and ultimately reject—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s existing doctrine of prosecution laches. Hyatt filed his petition on March 2, 2026. The specific question presented to the Justices is: “Whether the PTO may invoke the equitable doctrine of ‘prosecution laches’ to deny a patent to an applicant who has complied with all the Patent Act’s timeliness provisions.”

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list showing that the nation’s highest court had denied a series of petitions for writ of certiorari filed by major pharmaceutical developers to challenge the Medicare negotiation program established by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The Supreme Court also denied cert to an appeal of Section 101 patent-eligibility issues from a Federal Circuit ruling involving mobile banking technology, as well as a pro se cert appealing copyright and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against Disney.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to grant certiorari to resolve whether the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) permits an unjust enrichment award without any showing of actual loss resulting from the defendant’s misappropriation of trade secrets. The defendant in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Computer Sciences Corp. has petitioned for certiorari, arguing that actual loss is a prerequisite for an unjust enrichment award. The petition challenges a Fifth Circuit decision affirming a $56 million unjust enrichment award and a $112 million punitive award in favor of Computer Sciences Corp. (“CSC”), measured by the costs Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) avoided through its trade secret theft rather than by any proven actual loss to CSC.

In its recent petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Google argues that patents can be invalid at any time, even decades after issuance, and therefore should remain open to inter partes review (IPR) challenges, regardless of age or how long they have been relied upon. At first glance, this sounds like a defense of patent quality. Coming from one of the most frequent users of the Patent Trial and Appeal board (PTAB) over the past decade — and arriving just as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) “settled expectations” doctrine begins to limit late-stage IPR challenges — it raises a sharper question: why now?

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a case with broad implications for the generic industry’s practice of “skinny labeling” and the induced infringement standard for patent law and beyond. IPWatchdog reached out to members of the IP community for their initial takeaways from yesterday’s arguments.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Hikma v. Amarin, a closely-watched case that in part asks the Justices to weigh in on whether a drugmaker calling its product a “generic version” while citing public sales information about the branded drug induces infringement of a patented use fully carved out by the generic’s label. Hikma’s petition also asks whether a complaint states an induced infringement claim if it fails to allege any instruction or statement by the defendant mentioning the patented use. While some Justices today questioned why the case was even before them, others seemed concerned about the potential impact of the case for the generic pharmaceutical industry.

Pharmaceutical patent litigators are no strangers to the delicate dance between the Hatch-Waxman Act and 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). On one side of this statutory tightrope lies the Hatch-Waxman Act’s Section VIII pathway, which was designed to expedite affordable generic competition by allowing manufacturers to seek Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval solely for unpatented indications—the proverbial “skinny label.” On the flip side lies Section 271(b), which imposes strict liability on anyone who “actively induces” patent infringement.

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC, letting stand a precedential decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirming a district court’s award of more than $250,000 in attorneys’ fees to Google and finding that EscapeX had pursued a “frivolous” patent infringement lawsuit against Google and its attorneys had acted recklessly in prolonging the litigation.