Is there life in Ultramercial yet?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

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

One of the litigators expects that she’ll have to help clients navigate challenges posed by USPTO developments
Counsel explain what kind of ITC-related inquiries they’re getting from clients and why complaints at the forum were up in 2024
A ruling concerning a juicing machine, a tussle over a preliminary injunction and a new judge in Paris were among the top talking points this fortnight
John Squires has had a range of in-house and private practice experience, most recently in the IP group at Dilworth Paxson
President Donald Trump’s attacks on Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling should not go unchallenged
The combined entity, which is expected to offer IP services across Australia and New Zealand, will be called Jones Maxwell Smith & Davis
The Iconix v Dream Pairs dispute, to be heard at the UK Supreme Court, concerns trademarks owned by sports brand Umbro and the issue of post-sale confusion
The European IP team from Simmons & Simmons discusses the current approaches to IP enforcement against look-a-like or copycat products
Ten firms have each received more than 11 nominations, while more than 20 in-house counsel are up for awards
Yanfeng Xiong discusses 6am wake ups, honing his basketball skills, and how he prioritises tasks
Gift this article