WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the process for challenging invalid patents, making it easier for companies to fight so-called patent trolls.

The decision was one of many announced by the court today.

The justices were unanimous in backing the legal standard used to cancel patents by a new appeals board at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Congress created the board in 2011 over concerns federal officials were issuing too many patents and fueling the rise of patent trolls — companies that buy up patents and force businesses to pay license fees or face costly litigation.

The high court ruled against Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, a New Jersey company that had its patent for speedometer displays in cars declared invalid. Cuozzo had argued that the board was using an overly broad legal standard. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Writing for the court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the patent office has the authority to construe patent claims “according to the broadest reasonable construction of its words.”

Michelle Lee, director of the patent office, praised the ruling and said it would allow the appeals board “to maintain its vital mission of effectively and efficiently resolving patentability disputes while providing faster, less expensive alternatives to district court litigation.”

In other action:

  • The court rejected challenges to assault weapons bans in Connecticut and New York, in the aftermath of the shooting attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., that left 50 people dead.

The justices left in place a lower court ruling that upheld laws that were passed in response to another mass shooting involving a semi-automatic weapon, the elementary school attack in Newtown, Conn.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to gun restrictions since two landmark decisions that spelled out the right to a handgun to defend one’s own home.

In December, less than a month after a mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin G. Scalia dissented when the court refused to hear an appeal to overturn a ban on assault weapons in north-suburban Highland Park. Scalia died in February.

Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons. The others are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons, the center said.

Connecticut and New York enacted bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines in response to the December 2012 massacre of 20 children and six educators at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The gunman, Adam Lanza, shot and killed his mother before driving to the school where he gunned down the victims with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. Lanza then killed himself.

In Orlando, gunman Omar Mateen used a Sig Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle and a pistol during the attack at Pulse nightclub. Mateen was killed in a shootout with police after killing 49 others.

  • The court ruled that the European Union can’t pursue a lawsuit accusing tobacco giant R.J Reynolds of taking part in a global money-laundering scheme that sponsored cigarette-smuggling in Europe.

In a 4-3 ruling, the justices said the EU has no right to sue in U.S. courts because federal racketeering laws don’t allow recovery for injuries occurring outside the United States.

The EU and 26 of its member states allege RJR coordinated the scheme with the help of Colombian and Russian criminal groups and laundered money through New York-based financial institutions.

The EU claims the company’s actions hurt the economies of EU member nations by depriving governments of tax revenues.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said nothing in the civil racketeering laws indicates that Congress intended to create a private right of action for foreign injuries.

Alito said applying U.S. remedies to the case would “unjustifiably” allow European citizens to bypass the legal system in their own countries where damage awards are less generous.

Plaintiffs who bring civil racketeering lawsuits in U.S. courts are eligible for triple damages.

“Allowing foreign investors to pursue private suits in the United States, we are told, would upset that delicate balance and offend the sovereign interests of foreign nations,” Alito said. “There is a potential for international controversy that militates against recognizing foreign injury claims without clear direction from Congress.”

Alito was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

A federal judge threw out the claims but a federal appeals court ruled racketeering laws can apply to crimes committed in foreign countries.

Prosecutors alleged that RJR directed and controlled the scheme that involved laundering money through New York-based financial institutions.

A federal judge dismissed the claims, but the case was revived last year after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that racketeering laws can apply to crimes committed in foreign countries.

The company has called the allegations baseless.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, saying the text of the law places no limitation on where the injury must occur. She was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Breyer.

Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor took no part in considering the case. She had previously served on the appeals court and had written a 2004 opinion in the case at an earlier stage of the litigation.