Why It Matters

Apple Inc. is the client on a third-quarter 2026 lobbying report filed by registrant Marla Page Grossman, covering intellectual property, public health, and trade issues. The filing comes as Apple has a petition for Supreme Court review pending in an active International Trade Commission (ITC) patent dispute, in which the ITC can block imports of products found to infringe U.S. patents. ​

By the Numbers

The Marla Page Grossman third-quarter report, signed Oct. 9, lists $110,000 in compensation. That matches the second-quarter 2026 report of $110,000, unchanged quarter over quarter. The same registrant reported $110,000 in the third quarter of 2025, also unchanged year over year.

The two lobbyists on this filing are unchanged from the prior quarter:

  • Marla Grossman, owner, prior government experience, 46 total filings.
  • Luke Lynch, junior partner, prior government experience including a House internship, 43 total filings.

Broader Context

Apple has petitioned the Supreme Court to review a ruling in Apple v. ITC, a patent case involving Masimo Corp. The dispute centers on whether Masimo's research and development spending for a watch still in development satisfies the ITC's "labor or capital" domestic-industry test rather than the separate "substantial investment in exploitation" requirement. A University of Missouri law professor noted in September 2026 that the ITC's exclusion order covers the original Apple Watch design until the relevant patents expire in 2028, while the Commission cleared Apple's redesigned watch.

The Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) filed an amicus brief on Oct. 14, 2026, supporting Apple's petition, joined by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and the ITC Modernization Alliance. SIIA and its co-signers argue that treating general R&D spending as sufficient bypasses the statute's separate "substantial investment" requirement and warn that expanded exclusion orders can increase patent hold-up costs and chill follow-on investment. CCIA contends that ITC patent cases brought by entities without U.S. manufacturing facilities can be used to block lawful products, and argues the Supreme Court should restore the limits Congress set on ITC jurisdiction.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article