Posts in US Supreme Court

A songwriter told the U.S. Supreme Court this week to reject an attempt by the four largest music companies in the world to reverse a Fifth Circuit ruling granting him all rights to the 1966 Swingin’ Medallions single, “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love).” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in January 2026 in Vetter v. Resnick, affirming the Middle District of Louisiana’s grant of summary judgment declaring that Cyril Vetter, co-author of “Double Shot,” and Vetter’s affiliated companies are the sole owners of the copyright to the song throughout the world.

On Friday, an amicus brief was filed at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of major trade associations in the computer software, automotive, retail and other industries, urging the Court to grant Tesla’s petition for writ of certiorari following the denial of its petitions for inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging patent claims owned by self-driving technology company Granite Vehicle Ventures. The industry groups claim that the Court’s review is necessary to address so-called “patent trolls” and policies adopted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that effectively eliminate the use of IPRs to combat these allegedly bad actors.

Yesterday, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed at the U.S. Supreme Court taking aim at the federal judiciary’s conflation of subject matter eligibility with other areas of the patent statute, a growing concern in U.S. patent law since the Court decided Alice v. CLS Bank International (2014). Arguing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit used a single observation to answer both steps of the Alice/Mayo inquiry, the petitioner urges the Court to correct the Federal Circuit’s replacement of its flexible two-step Section 101 framework with rigid proxies that avoid the evidentiary safeguards of other patentability statutes.

Kahoot AS! filed a petition for writ of certiorari on July 24 asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) “settled expectations” doctrine for denying inter partes review (IPR) requests is authorized under the patent statute. The petition also asked the High Court whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars judicial review of that question.

The full U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday, titled “From Genes to Machines: the Patent Eligibility Debate,” during which witnesses testified about the pros and cons of reforming U.S. patent eligibility law, with human genome patentability featuring as a key sticking point. While the hearing became heated at times—mostly over the peripheral topic of drug pricing—witnesses and Committee members ultimately seemed willing to work together on language that might move the bill forward.

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).