Maria Santos

Correspondent

Maria Santos

White House correspondent, covers patent, trade and regulatory news

Business & Regulatory patent

Decisions covered by Maria Santos

1,026 decisions
Apr 8 2026
8th Cir. 25-2181 Panel Decision

Untitled Opinion

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has issued an opinion in this case. Judgment has been entered in accordance with the court's decision.

Apr 8 2026
Fed. Cir. 24-1460 Panel Decision

Fuente Marketing Ltd. v. Vaporous Technologies, LLC

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision dismissing a likelihood of confusion claim. The court held that the dissimilarity between Fuente's letter X marks and Vaporous's stick figure design mark was dispositive, outweighing other factors favoring confusion.

Apr 8 2026
9th Cir. 2:23-cv-06436 Published

Brothers Market LLC No. 2 v. United States

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's summary judgment for the government in a challenge to the permanent disqualification of a convenience store from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The court held that the store failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding suspicious transaction patterns that evidenced SNAP trafficking.

Apr 7 2026
11th Cir. 24-11260 Published

JEFFREY HAYES v. DIRECTOR, OWCP UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR COWIN & COMPANY, INC

The Eleventh Circuit vacated a Benefits Review Board decision, clarifying that the Black Lung Benefits Act does not require a miner to prove employment for a full 365-day calendar year to count as a year of service. Instead, the court held that working 125 days in coal mines during a calendar year is sufficient to establish a year of employment for benefit eligibility.

Apr 6 2026
9th Cir. 2:23-cv-01679-BJR Unpublished

Bramblett v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Co.

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's summary judgment, holding that an insurer breached its contract by refusing to defend an insured when the policy's sexual abuse exclusion was ambiguous. The court ruled that Washington law requires insurers to defend claims that could conceivably be covered, even if some allegations fall under an exclusion.