News & Analysis as of September 13, 2025

CAFC

+ Follow

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term. The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -

Earmuffs, Kids: The Federal Circuit Delivers the F-bomb Right Back to the TTAB

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on 9/4/2025

The Federal Circuit’s recent precedential decision in In re Erik Brunetti has surely raised some eyebrows in the trademark community (and beyond), not just for its subject matter (the attempted registration of a certain...more

Supreme Court Rejects TRUMP TOO SMALL Trademark

Fox Rothschild LLP on 6/14/2024

“TRUMP TOO SMALL”- This is the trademark that Steve Elster has been trying to get registered for the past six years since filing his trademark application all the way back in January 2018, during the Trump presidency. Since...more

Enablement Bar for Drug Patents

Jenner & Block on 9/14/2023

On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC) decision on enablement in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080 (CA Fed. 2021). The Court thus left in place a significant CAFC decision making it more...more

How Big a Deal Is “Trump Too Small”? – SCOTUS Today

Epstein Becker & Green on 6/19/2023

The question of whether a would-be trademark, “TRUMP TOO SMALL,” warrants a First Amendment exception to the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering a living person’s name as a trademark without that person’s permission has...more

Supreme Court’s Denial of Apple and Mylan’s Petitions Leaves NHK/Fintiv Rule in Place

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C. on 1/27/2022

On January 18, the Supreme Court denied petitions for writs of certiorari from both Apple and Mylan Laboratories. Each company sought to challenge the NHK/Fintiv framework that was developed by the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

Arthrex's Fallout - How is the Supreme Court Decision Affecting Appeals?

Foley & Lardner LLP on 8/31/2021

The Supreme Court rendered its decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew back in June and now the impact of that decision is becoming more clear. Arthrex had challenged the constitutionality of the appointment of administrative...more

Arguing Arthrex – Smith & Nephew and the U.S. Urge the Court To Deem Patent Judges Inferior Officers

Foley & Lardner LLP on 12/7/2020

Opening briefs from Smith & Nephew and the United States have been filed with the Supreme Court in the Arthrex cases which, as previously discussed, granted the petitions for certiorari from Arthrex, Inc., Smith & Nephew...more

Detecting Disease Is Not a “Tangible and Useful Result” Eligible for Patenting

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on 8/14/2019

The federal appeals court with jurisdiction over questions of patent law has consistently held that methods of diagnosing a disease or other biological condition violate the Supreme Court’s ban on patenting “natural...more

Intellectual Property Newsletter - January 2018

A&O Shearman on 1/12/2018

Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its latest newsletter. The newsletter addresses a number of current IP topics, ranging from the constitutionality and judicial reviewability of inter partes review to...more

Supreme Court to Decide the Constitutionality of Inter Partes Review

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on 6/24/2017

In a move that could drastically change the patent law landscape, the United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC, No. 16-712, to answer the question...more

Matal v. Tam: Trademark Disparagement Clause Held Unconstitutional

A&O Shearman on 6/21/2017

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held in an 8–0 decision that the disparagement clause in the Trademark statute—which prohibits the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute”...more

Intellectual Property Newsletter - June 2013

King & Spalding on 7/10/2013

In This Issue: *News from the Bench - Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling on Gene Patentability: Natural DNA “No”/ cDNA “Yes” - CAFC Reverses Denial of Permanent Injunction Based on Perceived Future...more

12 Results

View per page

Page: of 1

Supreme Court of the United States › United States Patent and Trademark Office › CAFC

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"