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 2025

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

AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
The keenly awaited ruling should act as a ‘call to arms’ for a much-needed evolution of UK copyright law, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Gift this article