The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected six petitions in patent-related cases, taking some of its first actions on intellectual property matters this term.

Here's a look at the cases the justices turned down in their order list. Unless otherwise stated, representatives for the parties did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

Purdue v. Accord

The high court declined to accept Purdue Pharma LP's appeal of a Federal Circuit decision denying the company's efforts to save a group of patents covering the pharmaceutical company's crush-resistant version of painkiller OxyContin.

A Delaware federal court had concluded that the asserted patent claims were invalid as obvious, a decision that the Federal Circuit affirmed in December 2024, saying that the "district court did not err in its determination that routine experimentation would lead a person of ordinary skill to 'quickly postulate ... and easily confirm the existence'" of an impurity that one group of patents sought to eliminate, the appeals court said.

Purdue told the high court in its petition in April that the Federal Circuit has taken far too rigid an approach to obviousness, including by adopting a so-called nexus requirement for secondary considerations of nonobviousness.

"The Federal Circuit has invented and deployed a stringent analysis and so-called 'nexus' test that demands evidence of a direct connection between the objective indicia and a particular claim limitation, while foreclosing recourse to broader inferences and common-sense," the petition said.

Purdue is represented by Gregory G. Garre, Margaret A. Upshaw, Alexander G. Siemers, Timothy J. Borgerson and Daniel G. Brown of Latham & Watkins LLP.

Accord is represented by Alejandro Menchaca and Ben J. Mahon of McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd.

The case is Purdue Pharma LP et al. v. Accord Healthcare Inc., case number 24-1132, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

D R Burton v. Trudell

The justices shut down a petition from a medical device maker that has taken issue with a North Carolina federal judge's oversight of a patent infringement case.

D R Burton Healthcare LLC in June filed its Supreme Court challenge against the Federal Circuit decision that ordered a new trial in the patent infringement case brought against it by Trudell Medical International Inc. Trudell has asserted a patent for a respiratory treatment device.

The Federal Circuit took issue in February with U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle's decision to allow tardy testimony from a witness who took D R Burton's side, as well as statements from him that had the effect of "undermining the appearance of justice and fairness." But D R Burton has argued that the appeals court didn't address issues with the pacing of the case, contending that the judge put the proceedings on too quick of a schedule.

"The lack of meaningful time to complete its obligations to the court and to prepare for trial in the substantially reduced time frame set forth by the court was a violation of D R Burton's due process rights," the company said in its petition.

Counsel for Trudell declined to comment.

D R Burton is represented by Albert P. Allan of Allan Law Firm PLLC.

Trudell is represented by David P. Lindner of Crowell & Moring LLP.

The case is D R Burton Healthcare LLC v. Trudell Medical International Inc., case number 25-17, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Lowe v. ShieldMark

The high court denied a petition by the inventor of a patent covering a type of marking tape that asked the justices to take a closer look at what the Federal Circuit called a case with a "complex procedural history."

The August petition from Cliff Lowe and Spota LLC asked the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit's opinion, which in March affirmed an Ohio federal court's conclusion that the patent was invalid as anticipated.

Lowe and Spota had filed a patent infringement case against ShieldMark Inc. over the floor marking tape that it sold in 2019, and the lower court issued a ruling in ShieldMark's favor based on a claim construction ruling. But the Federal Circuit voided that claim construction ruling and ordered the lower court to take another crack at the case, which resulted in a ruling that found the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that in the alternative, the claims were anticipated.

On appeal again, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the court's standing conclusion, but it agreed with the invalidity finding. Lowe and Spota have since taken issue with the Federal Circuit affirming a ruling that was made on an alternative basis.

Lowe is represented by Ray L. Weber and Laura J. Gentilcore of Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co. LPA.

Shieldmark is represented by James F. McCarthy III of Sand Sebolt & Wernow LPA.

The case is Clifford A. Lowe et al. v. ShieldMark Inc. et al., case number 25-169, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

USAA v. PNC Bank

The Supreme Court rejected United Services Automobile Association's efforts to revive two of its patents, one of which was at issue in its reversed $218 million infringement verdict against PNC Bank, declining to weigh in on this round of litigation between the companies, whose patent fights have led to numerous proceedings at the USPTO and Federal Circuit.

USAA's petition took aim at a Federal Circuit decision that affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings invalidating claims in the patents covering mobile check deposit technologies. One of those patents was at issue in a $218 million infringement verdict against PNC, although the Federal Circuit in June undid that verdict and another for around $4.3 million in a separate case.

The August cert petition from USAA said the PTAB invalidated claims in two of the patents, even though the board had reached a different decision in a similar challenge brought by Wells Fargo.

"The Federal Circuit's decision is wrong and tells the agencies falling under the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction that they need not justify their own inconsistencies, even on the same issue and on materially similar records," its petition said.

Counsel for PNC declined to comment.

USAA is represented by William M. Jay and Rohiniyurie Tashima of Goodwin Procter LLP and Lisa Glasser, Anthony Rowles and Stephen Payne of Irell & Manella LLP.

PNC is represented by Mark C. Fleming, Andrew J. Danford, Gregory H. Lantier and Joseph M. Meyer of WilmerHale.

The case is United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank NA, case number 25-149, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Crocs v. Double Diamond

In another matter that's part of a group of cases the Federal Circuit has deemed complex, the Supreme Court said it won't take on a case by Crocs challenging the appeals court's decision reviving false advertising claims against the company over its statement that its shoes were made with "patented, proprietary, and exclusive" materials that were not, in fact, patented.

The July petition from Crocs said the Federal Circuit "entrenched a significant circuit split over the breadth of the Lanham Act's false advertising cause of action" when it reversed in October 2024 a Colorado federal judge's conclusion that the shoemaker's claims don't fall under the Lanham Act's prohibition on false advertising under Section 43(a)(1)(B).

Double Diamond Distribution Ltd. and U.S.A. Dawgs Inc. brought their false advertising claims after Crocs sued them for patent infringement in 2016, and the appeals court said Dawgs furnished evidence indicating that Crocs' claims about the supposed patent on its shoe material spoke to the nature and characteristics of the shoes. The appeals court said 43(a)(1)(B) specifically covers claims to a product's "nature, characteristics, [and] qualities."

Matthew G. Berkowitz of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, who has represented Double Diamond Distribution, said in an email that they "expected this result and are now looking forward to finally getting justice in district court for Crocs' years of misrepresentations to the public about the characteristics of their shoe material."

Crocs is represented by Lisa S. Blatt and Rohit P. Asirvatham of Williams & Connolly LLP and John P. Elwood, Andrew T. Tutt, Sean M. Callagy, Isaac L. Ramsey and David A. Caine of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Double Diamond Distribution is represented by Matthew G. Berkowitz, Navid C. Bayar, Brian C. Baran, Adam Adler, Sarah O. Jorgensen and Nathaniel G. Warner of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.

The case is Crocs Inc. v. Double Diamond Distribution Ltd. et al., case number 25-75, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

R.J. Reynolds v. Altria

The Supreme Court declined to consider R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.'s challenge to a $95 million verdict against it for infringing Altria vape patents.

R.J. Reynolds' high court case targeted what it called the Federal Circuit's embrace of so-called built-in apportionment, which the company said is based on "comparable" patent license agreements and allowed Altria "to obtain damages on technologies it never patented, and on profits resulting from Reynolds's contributions, over which Altria obviously holds no patent rights."

Such a doctrine flouts the historic notion that patent owners can only recover damages based on what they actually invented, R.J. Reynolds said.

The Federal Circuit's opinion in the case, from December 2024, included a dissent from U.S. Circuit Judge William Bryson on the issue of damages. The judge said he believed the evidence supported a royalty rate of about half the 5.25% rate that Altria sought.

R.J. Reynolds is represented by Jason T. Burnette, Alexis A. Smith, John R. Boulé III, Gregory A. Castanias, Amelia A. Degory and David M. Maiorana of Jones Day.

Altria is represented by Mark A. Perry of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP.

The case is R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Altria Client Services LLC, case number 25-158, in the Supreme Court of the United States.