Whether a federal appellate court can reject a presumption of consumer deception in a Lanham Act false advertising case when a campaign is demonstrably willful and large-scale

No question identified. : for a writ of certiorari will otherwise expire on Thursday, January 8, 2026. This Application for Extension of Time is timely because it has been filed more than ten days prior to the date on which the time for filing the petition is to expire. 2. Applicant has good cause for an extension of time. This case involves important questions regarding the Third Circuit’s adoption of a legal rule that conflicts with the Lanham Act precedent of at least six other circuits. The First, Second, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits have each adopted the rule that, where an advertising campaign is willfully false, actual consumer deception is presumed. The foundation of this presumption is the common-sense and powerful inference that such a deliberately false advertising campaign has its intended effect and actually succeeds in inducing consumers to rely on a falsehood. The panel decision not only diverges from the dominant approach adopting a presumption of deception but goes further. It endorses the position that a jury cannot draw even a permissive inference that actual deception must have occurred in light of a large-scale and willfully false advertising campaign. This Court will benefit from a careful presentation of these weighty issues. 3. Counsel of record for Applicant has had, and continues to have, extensive professional and personal obligations over the period for filing a petition with this Court. For example, in recent weeks, counsel of record has an expedited appeal in Ascendis Pharma A/S v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc., No. 26-1026 (CAFC), as well as, among others, active pretrial proceedings in In re ChromaCode, Case 5:23cv-04823-EKL (N.D. Cal.), QIAGEN GmbH v. Zymo Research Corporation, Case 8:24 Cal.) and Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc. v. Pacific Biosctences of California, Inc., Case 5:24-cv-04098-NW (N.D. Cal.). 4. Other members of the legal team likewise have conflicting professional and personal commitments. Additionally, the time period for seeking certiorari includes the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s holidays. The issues in this case warrant careful briefing and consideration, which counsels in favor of the requested extension. 5. WHEREFORE, Applicant respectfully requests that an order be entered extending the time to and including Monday, February 9, 2026. Dated: December 15, 2025 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Edward R. Reines Edward R. Reines JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 739-3939 No. 25AIN THE Supreme Court of the Anited States CAREDx, INC., V. NATERA, INC., RESPONDENT. No. 25A-_