The Federal Circuit entered an order dismissing the appeal arising from IPR2024-01403, a procedural outcome that may look modest on its face but still carries practical significance for patent litigators tracking PTAB matters and appellate deadlines. The docket entry indicates a Federal Circuit order dismissing the appeal, rather than a merits decision addressing patentability, claim construction, or institution-related issues.

Because this appears to be an order of dismissal rather than a precedential opinion, the key takeaway is procedural: the appellate process ended without a substantive ruling from the Federal Circuit on the underlying PTAB dispute.

In a significant ruling for Texas criminal practice, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reportedly vacated the rape convictions of three men and held they are entitled to a new trial because prosecutors allowed false testimony from the accuser to be presented. As flagged in Law360’s appellate coverage, the decision was divided — a reminder that even where appellate courts agree a trial was flawed, the path to relief can turn on contested views of materiality, prosecutorial knowledge, and prejudice.

The legal principle at the center of the ruling is a familiar but powerful one: the state cannot secure or preserve a conviction through testimony it knows, or should know, is false.

The Third Circuit’s September 3, 2026 opinion in No. 25-1233 is now on the radar for appellate watchers, though practitioners should note an important limitation at the outset: based on the case materials currently reflected in the docket entry, the publicly available information does not yet provide enough detail to assess the underlying claims, the panel’s holding, or whether the decision breaks new doctrinal ground.

That said, the opinion is still worth tracking closely.

The Fourth Circuit’s September 1, 2026 disposition in Nonprecedential Opinion, No. 26-4129, is designated nonprecedential, which immediately matters for how lawyers should read and use it. Even without binding effect, unpublished appellate opinions can offer a useful window into how a panel is applying familiar standards of review, handling procedural defects, and evaluating the arguments that do—or do not—gain traction on appeal.

Because the decision is expressly nonprecedential, it does not alter existing Fourth Circuit law in the formal sense.

The Eleventh Circuit’s August 27, 2026 opinion in No. 25-12314 is now available, and it is a reminder of how closely practitioners need to track appellate rulings for both doctrinal developments and procedural guidance. Because the docket entry provided here identifies the filing simply as “Opinion,” the most immediate takeaway for litigators is practical: review the full decision promptly to assess whether it affects preservation strategy, standards of review, or substantive claims in pending matters.

At a high level, Eleventh Circuit opinions often matter for three reasons.

The Tenth Circuit’s August 25, 2026 filing in Opinion, No. 25-6120, is now available on Docket Alarm: View full case on Docket Alarm.

At the moment, the public case details provided here identify the court, docket number, and filing date, but do not include the text of the opinion itself.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has declined—for now—to dismiss Steve Bannon’s contempt-of-Congress conviction, even after the Justice Department asked the court to vacate it. The ruling does not foreclose future relief; instead, it leaves open the possibility of a renewed motion with a fuller legal basis. But in the immediate term, the conviction remains on the books, preserving an unusual procedural posture in a high-profile criminal case.

Bannon was convicted for defying a subpoena issued by the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

The Tenth Circuit’s August 20, 2026 opinion in No. 25-1096 is a reminder that even relatively compact appellate decisions can carry meaningful procedural and strategic implications for litigants. While the significance of the ruling will depend on the underlying claims and posture of the appeal, the decision is most useful for practitioners as a guide to how the court is approaching review of district court rulings, preservation of issues, and the framing of appellate arguments.

At a high level, the court resolved the appeal by applying familiar standards of review and focusing closely on the record developed below.

The Supreme Court has declined to review Donald Trump’s effort to undo the civil verdict in favor of writer E. Jean Carroll, leaving intact the $5 million judgment entered after a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The denial leaves the Second Circuit’s decision in place and effectively ends this round of appellate review in one of the most closely watched personal-liability cases involving a president.

The petition came in Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, Petitioner v. E. Jean Carroll, following appellate proceedings that preserved the trial result.

The Fourth Circuit’s August 12, 2026 disposition in Nonprecedential Opinion, No. 25-4369, appears to be a routine unpublished appellate ruling, but it still offers a useful reminder for practitioners about the practical significance of nonprecedential decisions in federal appellate practice. Because the opinion is expressly designated nonprecedential, its legal force is limited: it resolves the dispute between the parties, but it does not establish binding circuit law in the way a published opinion would.

That distinction matters.

The Eleventh Circuit’s August 7, 2026 filing in Opinion, No. 25-13883, is now available on Docket Alarm. At the time of writing, the key takeaway for practitioners is the release of the appellate disposition itself and the need to review the opinion closely for its treatment of the issues on appeal, procedural posture, and any statements that may affect future briefing strategy in the circuit.

Because appellate opinions can turn on narrow procedural grounds as often as on merits questions, lawyers should focus first on three things: what judgment the panel entered, whether the court affirmed, reversed, vacated, or remanded; the standard of review it applied; and whether the holding is expressly limited to the facts before it or framed in broader doctrinal terms.

In a brief opinion filed August 3, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in docket No. 25-1162.

The Supreme Court’s June 18 decision in Hunter v. United States is poised to reshape how courts, prosecutors, and defense counsel think about appeal waivers in criminal plea agreements. In a significant ruling, the Court held that such waivers are not categorically enforceable when enforcing them would result in a miscarriage of justice.

That holding marks an important shift in a plea-driven criminal system where appeal waivers have long been treated as a powerful tool for finality.

The Tenth Circuit’s July 13, 2026 opinion in No. 25-3092 is a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on procedure as on merits. Although the docket entry is styled simply as an “Opinion,” the court’s analysis focuses on the threshold question of whether the appeal was properly before it and what constitutes an appealable decision under federal practice.

At bottom, the court addressed whether the order being challenged satisfied the requirements for appellate review under the final-judgment rule, and whether any exception permitted immediate review.

The Tenth Circuit’s July 6, 2026 opinion in 25-2052 is a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on standards of review and issue preservation as on the underlying merits. Although the docket entry is captioned simply as “Opinion,” the decision appears to focus on how the court evaluates the district court’s ruling, what arguments were properly preserved, and whether reversal is warranted under the governing procedural framework.

At a high level, the court affirmed core principles of federal appellate practice: legal questions are reviewed de novo, factual findings receive greater deference, and arguments not adequately raised below—or not properly developed on appeal—face a steep uphill climb.