The second half of 2025 will see two pivotal U.S. court decisions likely to shape the future of intellectual property enforcement, both domestically and globally. The U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit are set to address, respectively, the scope of contributory copyright liability for internet service providers (ISPs) and the limits of trademark registrability in cases involving offensive language.

At the Supreme Court level, justices will consider a $1 billion lawsuit targeting ISPs for allegedly enabling mass copyright infringement. The litigation is expected to clarify the threshold of contributory liability — a doctrine that could redefine platform accountability. The ruling will impact digital content platforms, especially those navigating the complex obligations around user-generated content and safe harbor provisions under the DMCA.

Simultaneously, the Federal Circuit is preparing to weigh in on a First Amendment challenge to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to register profane or scandalous trademarks. The case could extend or limit the Court’s earlier rulings in Iancu v. Brunetti and Matal v. Tam, both of which struck down restrictions on viewpoint-based trademark denials. Brand owners and general counsel are watching closely for any recalibration in the balance between free speech and commercial regulation.

Parallel to these U.S. proceedings is the unsettled status of AI-generated works. Courts continue to confront the threshold question of whether non-human authorship can enjoy copyright protection. While the U.S. Copyright Office maintains that human authorship is required, ongoing litigation — such as Thaler v. Perlmutter — may compel a reexamination of this doctrine amid growing reliance on generative AI tools across creative industries.

Internationally, the European Union is progressing with copyright reforms aimed at harmonizing digital content regulation. The initiative focuses on striking a balance between creator compensation and platform liability, echoing the policy tensions seen in U.S. debates. Legal professionals following EU regulatory trends will note similarities in the direction of travel, particularly regarding intermediary obligations and automated content filtering mandates.

Corporate legal teams are already adapting compliance frameworks in anticipation of these rulings. Should the courts broaden liability or liberalize trademark registration, in-house counsel may need to revise content moderation practices, risk assessments, and IP portfolio strategies. For technology firms and multinational brand owners, the decisions could have cascading effects across jurisdictions and commercial models.