Johnson Johnson has announced a proposed $5.5 billion global resolution aimed at settling tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging its talcum powder products caused ovarian cancer, a major development in one of the country’s most closely watched mass torts.

Zoom Communications, Inc. has launched a new challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing inter partes review petition IPR2026-00424 on July 24, 2026. For patent litigators and in-house IP teams, the case is worth watching both for what it may reveal about Zoom’s defensive patent strategy and for how the Board addresses the prior-art arguments once the petition and supporting papers are fully joined on the docket.

At this stage, the publicly available case caption identifies Zoom Communications, Inc. as the petitioner, but practitioners should review the underlying filings to confirm the patent owner, the specific U.S. patent number being challenged, and the claims at issue. Those details typically frame the entire dispute: whether the challenged patent covers core communications, conferencing, networking, or collaboration functionality, and whether the petition is aimed at neutralizing litigation exposure, licensing pressure, or competitive risk.

As with any IPR, the key battleground will be the grounds for review. PTAB petitions commonly rely on anticipation or obviousness theories under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, built from combinations of patents, printed publications, and expert declarations.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00448, was filed on July 29, 2026, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and is captioned Dolby Laboratories, Inc. For patent litigators and in-house IP teams, the filing is worth watching not only because Dolby is a well-known player in audio and media technology, but also because PTAB challenges involving established portfolio owners often carry broader implications for parallel district court strategy, licensing leverage, and portfolio durability.

At this early stage, the public caption identifies the proceeding by the patent owner name, but the currently available case details do not yet specify in the docket summary which particular patent claims are being challenged, who the petitioner is, or the precise statutory grounds asserted.

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 Justice Department is elevating data security into a core national-security enforcement priority, with new public messaging and implementation activity around the federal government’s effort to restrict sensitive U.S. data from reaching foreign adversaries.

The EPA has finalized a settlement with Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC over alleged hazardous-waste mismanagement and chloroprene-related violations at the company’s LaPlace, Louisiana facility, closing out claims brought under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. While RCRA settlements are not unusual on their own, this one stands out because EPA framed waste-handling deficiencies as part of a broader set of environmental and public-health risks tied to the facility’s emissions profile and its long-running scrutiny from regulators, residents, and litigants.

That matters.

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division has resumed a targeted Hart-Scott-Rodino review process, an important signal that federal merger scrutiny remains active and potentially more exacting for certain transactions. While this development is not tied to a single headline-grabbing court fight, it matters because the HSR process is the front door to U.S. merger enforcement: changes in how the government screens deals can directly affect closing timelines, regulatory strategy, and overall transaction risk.

The announcement from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division suggests that parties should expect renewed attention to selected reportable deals during the premerger review stage.

The Long Island serial-killer prosecution is expected to reach a major procedural milestone Wednesday, when the defendant is sentenced in New York state court. Under the reported plea arrangement, a life sentence is anticipated, bringing one of the region’s most closely watched homicide cases to its formal punishment phase.

For criminal practitioners, the sentencing marks more than the end of a headline-grabbing prosecution.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00444 on July 24, 2026. As of the initial filing, the PTAB docket reflects the petitioner as Skechers, but practitioners will want to watch the case closely for the full petition, the identification of the challenged patent, the patent owner’s response, and any institution decision that clarifies the scope of the dispute.

At this early stage, the key public takeaway is that a major footwear company has turned to the PTAB to test the validity of a patent that is important enough to warrant administrative review.

Meta Platforms has filed an emergency motion in the Ninth Circuit, accompanied by a Circuit Rule 27-3 certificate, signaling that the company is asking the court for expedited intervention rather than waiting for the ordinary appellate schedule.

Federal authorities have announced a $24 million civil fraud settlement involving a Dallas laboratory and certain owners and investors over alleged misconduct tied to COVID-19 testing. The resolution is a notable reminder that pandemic-era billing practices remain a live enforcement priority, especially where the government believes testing claims were inflated, medically unnecessary, or otherwise noncompliant.

Although the matter was resolved through settlement rather than a litigated judgment, the size of the payment underscores how aggressively the Department of Justice continues to use civil fraud tools in the healthcare space.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00565 offers another useful look at how the Board is evaluating invalidity challenges at the merits stage—and what practitioners must do to carry their burdens through trial. Although the case turns on the particular patent claims and prior-art record presented, the decision underscores several recurring themes in PTAB practice: precise claim construction, disciplined obviousness analysis, and careful attention to evidentiary support.

In a final written decision, the Board resolves whether the petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged claims are unpatentable.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00434, was filed on July 23, 2026, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and is styled Aces Fuel Injection, Inc.. While the docket caption presently highlights the patent owner, the proceeding signals the start of what could become an important validity fight over fuel-injection technology and related patent claims.

At this early stage, practitioners should expect the key details to come into focus through the petition and mandatory notices: which specific patent is being challenged, the identity of the petitioner, and the precise claims and statutory grounds at issue.

KalshiEX LLC has filed a motion for an injunction in the Second Circuit, signaling that the dispute has reached a stage where ordinary appellate timing may not be enough to protect the company’s position.

In a short but notable procedural move, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a “Director Discretionary Decision Refer” in IPR2026-00286, signaling that the question presented is being elevated for Director-level consideration rather than resolved in the ordinary course by the panel. While this filing does not itself decide the merits of institution or patentability, it is important because it marks the case as one involving a potentially significant discretionary-institution issue.

At the PTAB, “discretionary” decisions typically concern whether the Board should decline to institute review even where the petition may otherwise satisfy the threshold statutory requirements.