Through its recent decision in Cox and its forthcoming decision in RiseandShine, the United States Supreme Court is shaping how and when threshold issues in intellectual property cases are decided. In Cox Communications, the Court raised the bar for holding service providers responsible for their users’ copyright infringements. In RiseandShine, the Court will decide whether a trademark’s inherent strength is a matter of law or fact. Both cases address threshold questions that can determine whether a copyright or trademark dispute reaches trial at all.

In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and held that a service provider cannot be found contributorily liable for copyright infringement due to knowledge it had that some subscribers were using its service to infringe. Instead, the Court held that the provider must have intended its service to be used for infringement. A copyright owner can demonstrate that intent in two ways: (1) by showing that the provider affirmatively induced infringement or (2) by showing that the provider offered a service tailored to infringement. Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent., 607 U.S. 583, 593–97 (2026). Mere knowledge of or indifference to users’ infringement is not enough to establish liability for contributory infringement under the new standard. This is a much higher evidentiary bar to clear for copyright owners looking to hold service providers accountable to remedy the infringements of unknown or countless infringers. Although Cox involved an internet service provider, its reasoning is sure to have implications for litigation brought against AI tools, cloud services, online marketplaces, and social-media platforms.

While Cox raised the substantive bar for secondary copyright liability, the Supreme Court’s upcoming significant IP decision will address a different threshold question: who decides a key component of trademark infringement. On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in RiseandShine Corp. v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 24-1016, to decide the circuit-splitting question of whether trademark strength is a question of fact for the jury or a question of law for the court. RiseandShine Corporation (Rise Brewing Co.) sued PepsiCo over PepsiCo’s launch of its MTN DEW RISE ENERGY drink. Rise Brewing has sold canned nitro cold-brew coffee under its RISE branding since 2016 and alleged that PepsiCo’s use of RISE was likely to cause confusion regarding the source or affiliation of Rise Brewing’s products.

A central point in this case is the conceptual strength of the RISE mark, and specifically, how strongly the term identifies a particular source when used in connection with coffee and energy drinks. The Second Circuit concluded that RISE was a weak suggestive mark because the word is closely associated with morning coffee, waking up, and increasing energy. RiseandShine Corp. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 41 F.4th 112, 122 (2d Cir. 2022).

Most federal circuits treat inherent trademark strength as a factual issue, while the Second Circuit sometimes treats it as a legal question that a court may decide: “while this Court has said, at times, that the classification of a mark is a factual matter… we have also stated that there is an undeniable legal element in the determination of how much strength a given mark commands.” Id. at 121. A trademark’s inherent strength varies along a spectrum from generic, to descriptive, to suggestive, to arbitrary or fanciful. This determination can greatly affect the outcome of a case and the owner’s rights moving forward. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the issue should ordinarily be left to a jury or resolved by a court. Its ruling could affect whether trademark claims survive summary judgment, the degree of deference appellate courts owe to trial-court determinations, and the evidence of a mark’s strength that trademark owners and accused infringers should develop before or early in litigation.

Cox and RiseandShine concern different IP rights, but they address a common question: what must a plaintiff show the court before the dispute reaches a jury? After Cox, copyright owners looking to hold service providers responsible for users’ conduct will need to show affirmative inducement or that the provider’s service was designed for infringement. If the Supreme Court in RiseandShine decides that a trademark’s strength is a matter of law, owners should be ready to provide evidence of their marks’ conceptual strength early in the dispute, before a court considers summary judgment. Together, the cases emphasize that in modern IP litigation, rights owners should be prepared to protect their rights and address these threshold questions before litigation.