Posts in US Supreme Court

When the Senate Judiciary Committee examines the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)      this week, lawmakers won’t simply be debating patent law. They’ll be deciding whether America remains the best place in the world to invent tomorrow’s technologies. That question has taken on new urgency following a series of Supreme Court decisions. In the wake of those rulings, inventors, investors, and even judges have struggled to determine whether many groundbreaking discoveries qualify for patent protection.

Broad functional genus claiming was previously a standard strategy for innovators seeking IP protection for antibodies. Prior guidance from the USPTO, including the “newly characterized antigen” test, encouraged broad claiming of antibodies based upon their function alone. For decades, that effectively allowed innovators to claim much more than they in fact discovered in practice. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Amgen decision, courts have adopted the reasoning articulated in Amgen to strike down functional genus antibody claims for lacking either enablement or written description.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s closely watched decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, which together clarified the scope of presidential authority to remove certain federal officials from office, the Court today denied the Trump Administration’s request to stay a lower court order temporarily restoring Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter to office while her challenge to her removal proceeds in court. The Court emphasized, however, that “[t]he denial of the application is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation,” leaving the substantive dispute for a later day.

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Apple Inc.’s appeal of a civil contempt finding stemming from its App Store dispute with Epic Games, Inc. The case centers on a 2021 injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and a subsequent contempt order tied to Apple’s commission structure on external purchases.

On the same day it granted a trademark petition, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a number of patent cases as its term nears an end, including the closely-watched case of Hyatt v. Squires, which challenged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) approach to the doctrine of prosecution laches. In addition to the Hyatt case, the Court also denied cert today in Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et. al.; Polar Electro Oy v. Firstbeat Technologies Oy; and Ortiz & Assoc. Consulting, LLC v. Vizio, Inc.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari filed by nitro cold brew coffee company RiseandShine Corporation, doing business as RISE Brewing, challenging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s application of the likelihood of confusion test in RiseandShine’s trademark infringement case against PepsiCo’s “Mtn DEW Rise Energy” energy drinks. Going against the U.S. Solicitor General’s calls to deny cert even though the Second Circuit erred in treating a trademark’s inherent strength as a question of law, the Supreme Court will answer whether this sub-factor of the consumer confusion analysis presents questions of fact that should be submitted to a jury.

The Supreme Court should grant certiorari in Hyatt v. Squires—a case it is scheduled to consider later this week—and finally put an end to prosecution laches in patent law. Not limit it. Not cabin it. Not send the Federal Circuit back to craft yet another multi-factor balancing test that will inevitably metastasize into a litigation weapon. The Supreme Court must end prosecution laches once and for all, period.

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition for certiorari in Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation v. Unified Patents LLC, a case that asked the High Court to consider whether patent owners have a right to require Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitioners to identify all real parties in interest (RPIs) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The petition stems from a precedential June 2025 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision dismissing Dolby Labs’ appeal from the PTAB for lack of an injury-in-fact to confer Article III standing. The Federal Circuit held that, although patent owners might have the right to dispute unnamed RPIs during IPR proceedings, the America Invents Act (AIA) does not give patent owners a freestanding right to identify RPIs.

The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari today in Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted IP, LLC, leaving in place a precedential decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB’s) cancellation of Game Plan’s trademark registration and dismissal of its opposition to six intent-to-use applications filed by Uninterrupted IP, LLC (UNIP).

It’s easy to take for granted that books, news, films, shows, songs, video games, photographs, artwork, and more are ubiquitously available through apps, streams, downloads and other digital means. But the thriving legitimate digital marketplace we enjoy today didn’t emerge by accident. It was built, in significant part, on the historical bedrock of secondary liability—the well-established common-law legal principle that one who assists another in committing a wrong is just as liable as the direct wrongdoer. In the internet ecosystem, that means platforms, internet service providers (ISPs), and other online intermediaries bear some responsibility when they knowingly facilitate or profit from copyright infringement.

Less than two weeks after Judge Pauline Newman filed her reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in response to the May 12 opposition brief filed by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, the Court has today denied Newman’s petition for certiorari. Newman filed her Supreme Court petition in March of this year.

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.