U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Intellectual Property Law Category

The Google v. Oracle litigation over Java APIs is on its ninth year, and now, second appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

Google has filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to resolve one fundamental issue for software copyrights (whether APIs can even be copyrighted), and one specific issue relating to whether Google's specific use of the Java APIs to create a new program constitutes fair use.

If you own any Apple device made in the last decade, you're probably familiar with the App Store. The App Store app allows Apple users to download both first- and third-party software for their Apple devices.

Unfortunately for Apple, a few years ago, a group of iPhone owners filed a class action antitrust action alleging that Apple's 30 percent commission on apps sold through their app store violates antitrust laws as there is no other platform to purchase apps. The case was initially dismissed at the district court level, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, ruling the case could proceed. But before it does, the High Court will weigh in, and just heard oral argument this week.

In what is being hailed as a victory for net neutrality advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected cert. in the U.S. Telecom Association v. FCC matter.

The case dates back to 2015 and the Obama-era net neutrality policies that were put into place. The telecoms and service providers challenged the law, and failed. And while the Court didn't provide any explanation behind the denial, it's highly likely that the fact that the policies at issue were rescinded by the FCC motivated the justices' decision.

A pair of patent appeals were argued before the High Court this week, each with potentially massive ramifications for IP litigators. One involves a challenge to a part of the inter partes patent review process established by the 2011 America Invents Act, while the other challenges the whole inter partes review process.

Both appeals strike a chord within the tech and intellectual property communities as each is attacking a process designed to stem and discourage patent trolls from filing lawsuits. The inter partes patent review process was designed to resolve the technical aspects of patent infringe disputes in a more cost effective manner.

Trademark attorneys, brief your intake clerks, and tell them to get ready for the flood of unpopular clients. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court held that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment. The disparagement clause required rejection of a trademark "which may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute."

The case was brought by an Asian American music group named "The Slants" which had sought trademark protection for their controversial name. Originally, the Patent and Trademark Office denied their trademark application, and the subsequent appeal. The federal district court overturned the PTO's decision, but that ruling was appealed up to the Supreme Court. Today's SCOTUS ruling upheld the group's right to trademark protection, paving the way for other controversial "disparaging" trademarks.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning in Lee v. Tam, the much-anticipated case over trademark registration, free speech, and disparaging names. The Slants, an Asian-American "Chinatown dance rock" band, had its trademark rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Slants' name, the PTO explained, was the sort of "scandalous, immoral, or disparaging mark" for which the Lanham Act denies trademark protection.

That decision eventually led the Federal Circuit to strike down the act's "disparaging marks" provisions as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. That's a ruling that could reach well beyond The Slants -- and straight to the Redskins, the Washington, D.C. football team that has been fighting its own offensive name dispute for years.

If you want to look thinner, try stripes, Court watchers learned yesterday. For extra slimming, look for clothes with "waist-narrowing V's."

No, the justices weren't advising Alito on the best way to wear a black robe. They were hearing oral arguments in a dispute over copyright protection for cheerleader uniform designs, arguments which quickly turned to how Kate Winslet chooses clothing to flatter her figure.

Will Samsung be able to blow up Apple's $399 million patent infringement award against it, or will its legal arguments spontaneously combust in front of the Supreme Court? The company, which is currently struggling to keep its Galaxy Note 7 phones from literally exploding, came before the Court yesterday to challenge the massive infringement award meted out after Samsung was found to have copied design features from the Apple iPhone in its own Galaxy line of smartphones.

The case is the culmination of a fiery legal battle that has lasted five years and which could carry significant implications for the design and technology industries.

So far, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear just over 30 cases during the upcoming term, but that number is sure to balloon in the coming weeks and months. Next week, for example, the Court will begin its "long conference," going through the cert petitions that have accumulated over the summer, followed by more cert reviews as the term goes on.

But the Court's makeup could be pushing it to accept some petitions while passing on others. The "shorthanded and ideologically divided Court," Reuters' Lawrence Hurley reports, is "showing a keen interest in more technical cases," such as intellectual property disputes. Among the drier cases that the Court could take up is a dispute over a dancing baby and a controversy over an offensive band name.

The Supreme Court has been in a generous mood this week. On Monday, the Court made it easier for patent holders to get treble damages for patent infringement and yesterday a unanimous Court ruled that the reasonableness of a party's claims should not be the determining factor when awarding attorney's fees under the Copyright Act's fee-shifting provisions.

The opinion, written by Justice Kagan, revived a $2 million claim for attorney's fees by Supap Kirtsaeng, a former Thai student who had been sued by an American textbook publisher. The ruling marks the second Supreme Court win for Kirtsaeng -- and his best chance at recovering legal fees after years of litigation.