Google LLC has filed a new inter partes review, IPR2026-00440, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on August 27, 2026, opening another front in what may become a closely watched patent dispute. At this stage, the docket identifies Google as the petitioner, but practitioners should note that early PTAB filings sometimes provide only limited public-facing party details until the petition and related papers are fully available through the record.

What we know now is that this proceeding is aimed at challenging the validity of an issued patent through the PTAB’s administrative review process.

The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Connecticut have announced a $4 million settlement with Manchester City Nissan over alleged deceptive-fee practices, marking another notable enforcement action aimed at dealer pricing transparency. The matter is particularly significant because it underscores continued coordination between federal and state regulators in policing so-called “junk fees” and other allegedly misleading charges in consumer transactions.

According to the FTC, the case focused on allegations that the dealership used deceptive fees in connection with vehicle sales.

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 dealt a significant setback to the Pentagon’s effort to sideline Anthropic from federal use, ruling that the government’s actions were “illegal and baseless” and temporarily blocking parts of the administration’s campaign against the AI company.

While the full factual record will matter as the case proceeds, the court’s language is notable.

Google LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, docketed as IPR2026-00466 on August 28, 2026.

A new inter partes review proceeding has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against Zoom Communications, Inc., opening another venue to watch for practitioners tracking software and communications-platform patent disputes. The petition, docketed as IPR2026-00461 and filed on August 24, 2026, places one of Zoom’s patents under PTAB scrutiny and may offer useful guidance on how challengers are framing invalidity arguments in the collaboration and conferencing space.

At this stage, the publicly available case caption identifies Zoom Communications, Inc. as the patent owner in the proceeding, but the docket entry should be monitored closely for the specific patent number, the identity of the petitioner, and the precise claims challenged as the record develops.

Apple has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00445 on August 25, 2026. At this stage, the public docket identifies the petitioner as Apple Inc., but practitioners will want to watch closely for the petition and accompanying exhibits to clarify the specific patent being challenged, the real party-in-interest disclosures, and the precise prior-art combinations Apple is advancing.

Even from the opening docket information, this proceeding is worth tracking.

Meta Platforms, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00459 on August 26, 2026. The petition adds to the steady stream of technology-company PTAB activity that in-house IP teams and patent litigators monitor closely for signals on validity strategy, parallel district court risk, and the Board’s treatment of software-focused claims.

At this stage, the docket reflects Meta as the petitioner, but practitioners should note that early PTAB filings often require close review to identify the full scope of the challenge: the specific patent owner, the patent number at issue, the challenged claims, and whether the petition is tied to co-pending litigation or broader portfolio pressure.

The Eleventh Circuit’s August 24, 2026 opinion in No. 25-13597 is now available, but practitioners should note an important limitation at the outset: the public case details provided here identify the court, docket number, and filing date, but do not include the text of the opinion itself. That means any substantive assessment of the panel’s holding, its reasoning, or its effect on existing law should be approached with caution until the full decision is reviewed.

What can be said with confidence is that an Eleventh Circuit opinion—whether published or unpublished—can have immediate practical significance for lawyers handling federal appeals, preserving issues for review, and evaluating how the court is currently approaching procedural and merits questions.

A federal judge in Washington has, at least for now, refused to grant the Justice Department’s request to dismiss Steve Bannon’s contempt-of-Congress conviction, leaving one of the more politically charged Jan. 6-related prosecutions on the books while prosecutors try again to justify their position.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols said the government had not adequately explained why dismissal was warranted.

A federal judge in California has sharply limited the government’s ability to use immigration enforcement against noncitizen students based on political speech critical of Israel or the war in Gaza. In a ruling reported by the Associated Press, Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court in California found the policy likely violates the First Amendment and is impermissibly vague, barring enforcement while the case proceeds.

The challenge was brought with the involvement of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the decision is notable because it addresses a question that has been looming over colleges and universities since protests intensified: whether the executive branch can treat campus advocacy as a basis for deportation when that advocacy is otherwise protected expression.

The American Bar Association’s House of Delegates has approved a wide-ranging package of policy measures that could ripple through court administration, law-enforcement practices, legal education, attorney ethics, and entry-level recruiting. Although ABA policy is not binding law, it often serves as a roadmap for state supreme courts, bar regulators, law schools, and employers when updating rules and professional standards.

For legal professionals, the significance is less about immediate legal effect and more about directional influence.

A federal judge in California has ruled for Anthropic in its challenge to the Pentagon’s decision to designate the AI company as a supply-chain risk, concluding the government’s action was unlawful and effectively preventing the blacklisting from taking hold. The dispute puts a spotlight on one of the most consequential fault lines in modern procurement law: how far the government can go in invoking national-security concerns to cut off a contractor — or potential contractor — from federal business.

At the center of the case is the Defense Department’s asserted authority to restrict access to the federal marketplace based on perceived risk.

KKR’s agreement to pay a reported $250 million to resolve U.S. Department of Justice allegations over repeated violations of federal premerger filing rules is a striking escalation in Hart-Scott-Rodino enforcement. For dealmakers and their counsel, the settlement is more than a large penalty: it is a clear warning that the government is prepared to pursue aggressive remedies when it believes parties have sidestepped antitrust review.

The dispute centers on the HSR Act, which requires parties to certain acquisitions and mergers to notify federal antitrust regulators and observe a waiting period before closing.