Mar 6 2026
3rd Cir. 2:22-cv-01791 Panel Decision

THERESA A. GALLAGHER v. CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the Central Valley School District, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove age discrimination under the ADEA and PHRA. The court held that the school district's reasons for hiring a younger candidate were legitimate and that the plaintiff's evidence of pretext amounted to mere speculation.

Mar 6 2026
3rd Cir. 2:22-cv-02941 Panel Decision

Quinton Burns v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of sanctions against SeaWorld, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose penalties. The appellate court emphasized that decisions regarding litigation conduct sanctions are generally entrusted to the sound judgment of the trial court.

Mar 6 2026
Fed. Cir. 25-1672 Panel Decision

In re HBN SHOE, LLC

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's rejection of a patent application for a cleated athletic shoe as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The court held that the claimed design, which features a concave depression to facilitate foot movement during exercise, was an unpatentable combination of prior-art references.

Mar 6 2026
Fed. Cir. 24-2296 Panel Decision

EXAFER LTD v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's exclusion of a patent damages expert report, ruling that the lower court misapplied precedent regarding royalty bases. The court held that using unaccused virtual machines as a royalty base was permissible where a causal connection existed between the patented technology and the increased capacity of those machines.

Mar 6 2026
3rd Cir. 24-2761 Panel Decision

CHRISTOPHER G. MASSEY v. BOROUGH OF BERGENFIELD

The Third Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment, predicting that the New Jersey Supreme Court would invalidate the state's 'Background Circumstances Rule' for employment discrimination claims. The court held that the rule, which imposes a heightened burden on majority-group plaintiffs, is incompatible with the text of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.