The Justice Department has agreed to pay $180 million to the Municipality of Anchorage to resolve a long-running dispute over the Port of Anchorage expansion project, bringing an end to litigation that began in 2014. The resolution closes out one of the more notable federal-liability infrastructure cases in recent years, both because of the size of the payment and because it centers on alleged failures tied to a major public works project.

The underlying case, ANCHORAGE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. USA, has been closely watched by lawyers handling claims involving federal project participation, municipal plaintiffs, and damages arising from large-scale construction and engineering failures.

The Justice Department has agreed to pay the Municipality of Anchorage $180 million to resolve long-running litigation over the failed Port of Anchorage expansion project, closing out a dispute that has been pending for more than a decade. For public-law watchers and federal litigators, the settlement stands out both for its size and for the age of the case, which traces back to a 2014 filing in the Court of Federal Claims.

The underlying lawsuit, ANCHORAGE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. USA, arose from an expansion effort at the Port of Anchorage that ultimately failed, leaving behind years of litigation over responsibility for the project’s breakdown and the resulting financial harm.

The Justice Department has announced that the United States will pay $180 million to the Municipality of Anchorage to resolve long-running litigation over the failed Port of Alaska expansion project, closing out one of the more significant public-infrastructure disputes to arise from a federally supported construction effort.

The settlement ends litigation that has been unfolding for years over the unfinished port modernization project, which was tied to work performed under the oversight of the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD).

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division has announced that the United States will pay approximately $17 million to resolve claims brought by nearly 630 plaintiffs arising from the Red Hill jet fuel spills, a significant development in the long-running legal fallout from the Hawaii fuel contamination crisis.

The settlement stands out not only because of the dollar amount, but because it reflects the government’s continuing exposure from one of the military’s most visible environmental disasters in recent years.

A federal judge has closed President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury, but not without raising pointed questions about how the case ended and whether it ever presented a conventional adversarial dispute.

Shutterstock has agreed to pay $35 million to resolve Federal Trade Commission allegations that it used deceptive subscription and cancellation practices, adding to a growing line of enforcement actions targeting so-called “negative option” marketing. According to the FTC, Shutterstock obscured important terms tied to annual subscription and content-pack plans and made it harder for customers to cancel than to sign up.

While the dollar amount is notable, the broader significance lies in what the case signals about the FTC’s enforcement priorities.

In IPR2025-01188, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board terminated the proceeding after the parties settled following institution. The decision applies the familiar framework of 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, which govern settlement and termination of inter partes review, but it is still a useful reminder of how the Board handles cases once trial is already underway.

The core ruling is straightforward: when the parties jointly request termination after institution and the Board has not yet decided the merits, the PTAB generally will terminate the review as to those parties.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board terminated IPR2025-01302 after the parties settled following institution of trial, illustrating the Board’s usual approach when a dispute becomes moot before a final written decision. The order is a reminder that, even after institution, settlement can still bring an IPR to a close—though timing and procedural posture matter.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and the PTAB’s trial rules, an instituted inter partes review may be terminated upon joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has already decided the merits.