Is there life in Ultramercial yet?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Is there life in Ultramercial yet?

The long-running Ultramercial patent case may have some life left in it yet, with the filing this week of a Supreme Court petition

US Supreme Court

Ultramercial this week petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in its long-running patent case.

The company argues that the Federal Circuit is divided on the issue of Section 101 as a result of its rulings in Ultramercial v Hulu, which invalidated the patent in suit, and DDR Holding v Hotels.com, which found the patent in suit valid.

After twice finding the claims at issue in the Ultramercial case patent-eligible, the Federal Circuit in its November decision found them to be ineligible in light of Alice.

Ultramercial argues that any clarity brought to Section 101 jurisprudence after Alice has been shattered by the two Federal Circuit decisions. The company says that its claims are similar to those in DDR and thus the Federal Circuit is just as divided as it was before Alice.

It is unlikely the Supreme Court will take up the case, as suggested by a Patently-O blog post titled “Ultramercial Shoots for the Moon”.

However, as the Patent Docs blog noted, the consequences could be very big if it does.

“If the Court does review this case, software patentees may become uneasy,” wrote McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff associate Michael Borella on the Patent Docs blog. “For instance, the Court might decide that the claims of Ultramercial and DDR rise or fall together. As DDR is the only post-Alice § 101 case reviewed by the Federal Circuit that has found claims to be patent-eligible, it is a valuable data point for applicants and patentees. Losing this data point would deepen the mystery of what claims incorporating an abstract idea need to recite in order to be patentable.”

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Michelle Lee discusses reaching milestones at the USPTO, AI’s role in legal work, and how to empower women in tech and IP
Executive chair Matt Dixon, who reveals a new associate hire, says the firm wants to offer a realistic pathway to partnership while avoiding the ‘corporate machine’ route
Mayer Brown’s role in cardiovascular technology dispute reflects how firms are pursuing precedent-setting cases to try and guide AI and patent law
Kevin Mack, Via’s new president, emphasises the importance of collaborative licensing structures and shares how AI tools can help create new lines of business
A Tokyo District Court ruling concerning movie spoilers, and a second chance for VLSI against Intel were also among the top talking points
Practitioners believe new AI tools at the USPTO will not replace lawyers or disrupt revenue, but instead expose where a trademark attorney’s value lies
Leighton Cassidy Legal hopes to leverage its founder's international experience and provide clients with a rare chance to receive litigation and prosecution under one umbrella
Gift this article