Correspondent
White House correspondent, covers patent, trade and regulatory news
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision in a nonprecedential ruling. The court issued a per curiam judgment without providing detailed reasoning.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Jada Orr's motion to file a third amended complaint. The court held amendment would have been futile because the proposed pleading largely repeated her prior allegations, while her state-law contract claim was properly dismissed without prejudice after the federal claims were dismissed.
The First Circuit issued an errata sheet correcting the spelling of the defendant's name in the case caption. The amendment changes "GARCÍA-TORRO" to "GARCÍA-TORO" on the cover page of the opinion issued on May 29, 2026.
The Third Circuit held that Philadelphia could be held in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy discharge as to one property after pursuing post-discharge collection despite actual notice of the bankruptcy. But the court agreed contempt was not warranted as to a second property because the debtor failed to prove the discharge covered that debt.
The Fourth Circuit held that Virginia courts lacked personal jurisdiction over a California employee accused of defaming a coworker. But it also held that the complaint plausibly stated a vicarious-liability claim against the employer under Virginia's presumption favoring respondeat superior at the pleading stage.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment allowing Wilmington Savings to enforce a Texas home equity loan and foreclose on the property. The court rejected challenges based on service, standing, and limitations.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision rejecting patent claims for an automated kitchen system. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the claimed invention was obvious in light of prior art references.
The Fourth Circuit held that two lawsuits against Avertest were related claims under Columbia Casualty's claims-made policy. Because the earlier suit was first made during Columbia's policy period, Columbia had to cover the later suit and reimburse Navigators.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a motion to withdraw a petition for a writ of mandamus. The court dismissed the petition as a result of the withdrawal.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Brysons' complaint against Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC. The court found no basis for relief under Rule 59(e) or Rule 15.
