ATT Services, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00348 on May 5, 2026.

The Department of Justice has announced that a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina has indicted former FBI Director James Comey on charges alleging threats to harm President Donald Trump. Whatever the ultimate merits, the case is immediately significant because it combines a high-profile defendant, allegations involving threats against a sitting or former president, and the likelihood of fast-moving appellate and procedural litigation.

For legal professionals, this is the kind of prosecution that will be watched as closely for its procedural posture as for its political implications.

The Ninth Circuit’s May 7, 2026 civil opinion by Judge McKeown appears to be a useful procedural decision for litigators focused on preserving issues for appeal and understanding the scope of appellate review. Although the docket entry does not itself provide the full factual background, the opinion is notable because the court addresses core appellate principles that frequently determine whether a party can obtain relief at all.

At a high level, the court reaffirmed that appellate review is constrained by the record developed below, the arguments actually presented to the district court, and the applicable standard of review.

ATT Services, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00349 on May 5, 2026. At this early stage, the proceeding is notable less for any merits ruling and more for what it signals: another major operating company turning to the PTAB as part of a broader patent-defense playbook.

Based on the case caption, ATT Services, Inc. is the petitioner.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution in IPR2026-00146, concluding that the petitioner met the threshold showing required under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a): a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. At the institution stage, that is the key question, and the Board found the petition sufficiently supported to move forward to a full trial on patentability.

Although an institution decision is not a final merits ruling, it is often a significant signal.

Former FBI Director James Comey has made his first court appearance in a criminal case alleging he made a threat against former President Donald Trump, launching what could become a closely watched test of how federal prosecutors prove criminal intent in politically charged speech cases.

The prosecution, styled US v. James Comey, Jr., is drawing unusual scrutiny not only because of Comey’s public profile, but because it lands squarely at the fault line between criminal threats law and First Amendment protections.

Federal prosecutors have announced charges against Cole Tomas Allen in a case alleging attempted assassination of the president and assault on a federal officer with a deadly weapon. Even at the indictment stage, the matter immediately stands out as one of the most consequential federal criminal prosecutions in the current news cycle, both because of the alleged target and because of the extraordinary security, evidentiary, and public-interest issues that typically accompany charges of this magnitude.

The case, styled United States v. Cole Tomas Allen, is significant not simply for the severity of the allegations, but for the procedural and strategic questions it is likely to raise as it moves forward.

The Department of Justice highlighted two very different but equally consequential criminal matters this week: a jury conviction in Virginia tied to the deletion of U.S. government databases, and a guilty plea in a terrorism case involving an alleged ISIS-inspired plot targeting a Jewish center in Brooklyn. Taken together, the cases show DOJ’s continued focus on cyber-related insider threats and national-security prosecutions with international dimensions.

In the Eastern District of Virginia, federal prosecutors announced that a jury convicted Sohaib Akhter of Alexandria on charges connected to the deletion of U.S. government databases.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday left in place, for now, lower-court rulings that allow the mailing of the abortion pill mifepristone to continue while litigation proceeds. The order preserves the status quo in one of the most closely watched administrative-law and reproductive-rights disputes in the country, avoiding an immediate change to how patients and providers access medication abortion.

At a practical level, the Court’s action means that providers, pharmacies, and telehealth platforms may continue relying on the current federal framework that permits distribution by mail, rather than shifting abruptly to a more restrictive regime.

A federal judge in California has put the proposed Nexstar Media Group acquisition of Tegna on hold, preventing the deal from moving forward until antitrust claims are resolved. The ruling by Judge Troy Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California marks a significant development in a closely watched fight over consolidation in local television and broadcast markets.

The challenge comes from DirecTV and a coalition of eight state attorneys general, who argue the merger would lessen competition and ultimately raise costs or reduce choices for consumers and distributors.

The Justice Department has announced an $8.33 million settlement with Modern Nuclear to resolve allegations that the company paid unlawful kickbacks to medical practices tied to its mobile PET scan services, leading to claims reimbursed by federal healthcare programs. While the matter was resolved without a determination of liability, the settlement is a notable reminder that the government continues to treat kickback-driven referral arrangements as a core healthcare-fraud enforcement priority.

According to the government’s allegations, the company’s financial arrangements with physician practices crossed the line from legitimate business relationships into conduct that potentially violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. That matters because claims submitted to federal programs that are allegedly tainted by kickbacks can also trigger liability under the False Claims Act, dramatically increasing exposure through treble damages and per-claim penalties.

For legal and compliance professionals, the case underscores a recurring enforcement theory: even when the underlying services are medically appropriate, the manner in which referrals are obtained can create FCA risk.

Walmart Inc. has moved for summary judgment in 1:24-cv-04562 in the Northern District of Illinois, asking the court to resolve the case in its favor without a trial. A summary judgment motion is one of the most consequential filings in civil litigation: it tests whether the nonmoving party has enough admissible evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact. If not, the court can enter judgment as a matter of law.

At this stage, Walmart is likely arguing that discovery has closed and the evidentiary record does not support one or more essential elements of the plaintiff’s claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear appeals arising from Ohio’s House Bill 6 scandal leaves in place lower-court rulings tied to one of the largest public-corruption prosecutions in recent state history. The denial does not create new precedent, but it is consequential: it preserves the existing outcomes in the prosecutions of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and former Ohio Republican Party chair Matt Borges, while keeping pressure on related federal matters involving former FirstEnergy executives.

For legal professionals, the practical significance is straightforward.

Elon Musk reportedly sought to settle his dispute with OpenAI before a scheduled trial in Oakland, but the effort failed, leaving one of the most closely watched AI-related business cases on course for a courtroom fight. The case centers on Musk’s claims over OpenAI’s structure, mission, and relationship with Microsoft, and it has become a proxy battle over how artificial intelligence ventures can evolve from nonprofit-rooted organizations into dominant commercial players.

That failed settlement attempt is legally significant for at least two reasons.

The Sixth Circuit’s April 28, 2026 disposition in Nonprecedential Opinion, No. 23-3645, appears to be just what its caption suggests: a nonprecedential ruling that resolves the parties’ dispute without creating binding circuit law. Even so, these unpublished decisions are often useful to practitioners because they show how the court is applying settled standards in day-to-day appeals—and what arguments are gaining traction with the panel.

Because the opinion is expressly nonprecedential, its immediate doctrinal impact is limited.