All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Your guide to a busy SCOTUS term for IP cases

US Supreme Court 2 Credit Joao Fernandes 168

The US Supreme Court ruled on eight intellectual property cases this term. Get up to speed with our overview of the cases and links to our analysis of the decisions and arguments

This week saw the final US Supreme Court intellectual property ruling of a busy term. As is often their way, the justices saved probably the most high-profile decision until last. The Court in Matal v Tam found the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act unconstitutional.

It was the eighth ruling handed down this Supreme Court term – which started in October and ends this month – with six patent cases, one copyright case and one trade mark case.

This week it rounded out its IP-related activity by denying cert to five cases, including the dancing baby case.

But the Court does not appear to be losing its appetite for IP cases. It had previously taken on two Patent Trial and Appeal Board appeals that have the potential to completely reshape the Board’s role.

The Court will assess the constitutionality of PTAB trials, after this month granting cert in Oil States Energy Services v Green’s Energy Group. And in May, the court granted cert in SAS Institute v Lee to consider whether the Board must issue a final decision on all challenged patent claims or if it can use its discretion to issue final decisions on only some claims brought in an IPR.

From the rulings handed down this term, Tam and TC Heartland are the two blockbuster cases. But there was plenty else that will impact IP practitioners, including the high court shaping law on biosimilars, copyright in cheerleading uniforms, design patents, laches in patent cases, exhaustion and much more.

Below is a summary of each case, with links to the Supreme Court ruling and Managing IP’s analysis of oral arguments and the decisions.


Date granted cert

Date argued

Date decided

Argued by (bold denotes which party the opinion was most favourable to)

Opinion delivered by


Samsung v Apple

Mar 21 2016

Oct 11 2016

Dec 6 2016

Kathleen Sullivan of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for Samsung; Seth Waxman of WilmerHale for Apple

Sotomayor for a unanimous court

In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under Section 289 of the Patent Act need not be the end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of that product.

LifeTech v Promega

Jun 27 2016

Dec 6 2016

Feb 22 2017

Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin for Life Technologies; Seth Waxman of WilmerHale for Promega

Sotomayor; Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined; Thomas and Alito joined as to all but part II–C; Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas joined. Roberts took no part.

The supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to §271(f)(1) liability

SCA Hygiene v First Quality Baby Products

May 2 2016

Nov 1 2016

Mar 21 2017

Martin Black of Dechert for SCA; Seth Waxman of WilmerHale for First Quality

Alito; Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined; Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.

Laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for damages brought within §286’s 6-year limitations period

Star Athletica v Varsity Brands

May 1 2016

Oct 31 2016

Mar 22 2017

John Bursch of the American Law Institute for Star Athletica; William Jay of Goodwin Proctor for Varsity

Thomas; Roberts; Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment; Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy joined.

A feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work — either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression — if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated.

TC Heartland v Kraft Food

Dec 14 2016

Mar 27 2017

May 22 2017

James Dabney of Hughes Hubbard & Reed for TC Heartland; William Jay of Goodwin Proctor for Kraft

Thomas; all other members joined, except Gorsuch, who took no part.

The amendments to §1391 did not modify the meaning of §1400(b) as interpreted by Fourco. A domestic corporation “resides” only in its state of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.

Impression v Lexmark 

Dec 2 2016

Mar 31 2017

May 30 2017

Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown for Impression; Constantine Trela of Sidley Austin for Lexmark

Roberts; Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Gorsuch took no part.

A patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose or the location of the sale.

Sandoz v Amgen

Jan 13 2017

Apr 26 2017

Jun 12 2017

Deanne Maynard of Morrison & Foerster for Sandoz; Seth Waxman of WilmerHale for Amgen

Thomas for a unanimous court. Breyer filed a concurring opinion.

An injunction is not available under federal law, but the court below will decide whether an injunction is available under state law. An applicant may provide notice before obtaining a license from the FDA for its biosimilar.

Matal v Tam 

Sept 29 2016

Jan 18 2017

Jun 19 2017

Malcolm Stewart of Department of Justice on behalf of the government; John Connell of Archer for Tam

Alito, with various Justices joining and concurring in part (see bottom of this article for full details)*

The disparagement clause of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause

Samsung v Apple

Supreme Court December 6 ruling


Samsung v Apple: SCOTUS redefines article of manufacture

Argument analysis

Samsung v Apple SCOTUS arguments: Tests proposed for "article of manufacture"

LifeTech v Promega

Supreme Court February 22 ruling


SCOTUS rules in Life Tech v Promega: One is not enough

Argument analysis

Analysing Life Tech v Promega arguments at the US Supreme Court

SCA Hygiene v First Quality Baby Products

Supreme Court March 21 ruling


US Supreme Court rules no laches defence available in patent cases

Argument analysis

Laches and patent law: SCA Hygiene v First Quality Baby Products SCOTUS arguments

Star Athletica v Varsity Brands

Supreme Court March 22 ruling


US Supreme Court finds cheerleading uniform designs copyright eligible

Argument analysis

Star Athletica arguments: Will SCOTUS find a uniform test for useful articles?

TC Heartland v Kraft Food

Supreme Court May 22 ruling


SCOTUS limits patent venue in Heartland ruling

TC Heartland – initial reaction to “most significant patent law decision since Alice”

Predicting the future for the Eastern District of Texas after TC Heartland

What will become of patent reform legislation post-TC Heartland?

Argument analysis

US Supreme Court revisits patent venue in TC Heartland v Kraft arguments

Impression v Lexmark 

Supreme Court May 30 ruling


US Supreme Court overturns Federal Circuit patent exhaustion stance in Impression v Lexmark

Interview: Inside Impression Products’ win at the Supreme Court

Argument analysis

Impression v Lexmark arguments analysis: When are patent rights exhausted?

Sandoz v Amgen

Supreme Court June 12 ruling


SCOTUS rules biosimilar applicants can provide notice before FDA approval

Is an injunction available in biosimilar cases under state law? 

Argument analysis

The patent dance takes the US Supreme Court floor in Sandoz v Amgen oral arguments

Matal v Tam 

Supreme Court June 19 ruling


Disparagement clause offends First Amendment, says SCOTUS in Tam

Argument analysis

US Supreme Court examines many angles in Slants oral arguments

*Alito with respects to Parts I, II and III-A; Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined; Thomas joined except Part II; Alito delivered opinion with respects to Parts III-B, III-C and IV; Roberts, Thomas and Breyer joined; Kennedy concurred in part, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan; Thomas concurred in part. Gorsuch took not part.

More from across our site

The UPC held a pilot training system for its new IT system in London last Thursday, June 30, and a full programme will follow later this year
In-house sources say clarity on what counts as lawful access to data will be key to the success of the UK’s new copyright exception
The attitude of ISPs continues to shift following a copyright claim filed at the England and Wales High Court
The EU is seeking to create a single market for data and trade secrets owners will need to prepare early, according to IP lawyers at Osborne Clarke
In-house and private practice counsel discuss issues with pre-grant opposition in India, including the rise of non-speaking orders and straw man filings
The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal on American Axle, dashing hopes of a judicial fix to patent eligibility uncertainty
The Copyright Office refused to grant protection on the basis that the authorship couldn’t be distinguished from the final work produced by the program
COVID vaccines top Clarivate’s new brands list; Fed Circuit reverses Coca-Cola’s TTAB win; Skechers sues Brooks; USPTO to retire Public PAIR tool; CCB sees cricket complaint
Lawyers should pay attention to APJs’ questions and remember that PTAB proceedings aren’t jury trials, say former PTAB judges
The USPTO cancelled ‘Galavava’ and 'Surfstar Wake' and partly cancelled ‘Heika’ this month
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree