IP Law Daily, STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES: Supreme Court to consider ISP liability for users’ copyright infringement in 2025 term, (Sep 29, 2025)

By Thomas Long, J.D.

The only IP case yet granted review is a high-stakes dispute over Cox Communications’ culpability for customers’ music piracy. A new article previews the upcoming Supreme Court term.

In advance of the traditional launch of the Supreme Court term on the first Monday of October, a new Strategic Perspectives article takes a look at the IP cases on the Supreme Court’s docket. So far, the Court has accepted only one IP case for review—a long-running copyright battle between Internet service provider Cox and an army of large music publishers and recording labels. In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment (No. 24-171), Cox asks the Court to overturn a Fourth Circuit decision holding that Cox could be held liable for “materially contributing” to copyright infringement based on the mere knowledge that certain customer accounts were being used for unlawful file sharing, and Cox’s failure to terminate access to the accounts, without proof that Cox affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it. Critics of the Fourth Circuit’s decision have warned that the appellate court’s low threshold for contributory liability could lead to many people losing Internet access due to accusations of copyright violations.

Also examined are three noteworthy pending petitions for certiorari, including two patent cases involving generic pharmaceuticals. One, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. (No. 24-889), is a Hatch-Waxman case challenging a Federal Circuit decision on the standards for finding that a generic drug maker induced others to infringe a branded drug maker’s patents despite the drug maker’s compliance with “skinny labeling” requirements. The Court has asked the Solicitor General to file a brief with the views of the United States about the case.

In MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (No. 25-225), generic drug maker MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has asked the Court to address the question of whether “after-arising technology”—technology developed after a patent’s filing date—can support a patent invalidity finding with respect to the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

Also noted is JFXD TRX ACQ LLC v. Ming (No. 25-188), in which the Court is being asked to resolve a split among the circuit courts of appeal as to whether claims under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), can be supported by re-registration of domain names. The International Trademark Association (INTA) has filed an amicus brief urging the court to grant the petition for review and rule in favor of the petitioner.

The Strategic Perspectives article, titled “In upcoming term, Supreme Court set to tackle dispute over ISP’s liability for customers’ music piracy,” is available here.

MainStory: Copyright Patent TechnologyInternet Trademark