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.

KalshiEX LLC has filed a motion for injunction in the Second Circuit, a notable appellate move that signals the company is seeking immediate relief while its appeal proceeds.

Two of the eight men charged in a highly unusual alleged terrorism plot have pleaded not guilty in federal court in Ohio, moving forward one of the more closely watched recent criminal cases involving alleged plans to attack a public event on the White House lawn. The defendants, Tycen Proper and Chandler Scaggs, are among a group accused in a purported drone-and-sniper conspiracy targeting a UFC event, with the proceedings before U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus Jr.

The case has drawn outsized attention because of the alleged target, the nature of the conspiracy allegations, and the fact that multiple defendants are being handled in consolidated federal proceedings.

Thomas C. Goldstein, a nationally known Supreme Court advocate and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, has been sentenced in federal court to 72 months in prison for tax crimes and mortgage fraud. The court also revoked his bond and remanded him into custody at sentencing, an unusually sharp procedural turn that underscores how seriously the court viewed the conduct and the need for immediate detention.

The case stands out not only because of the sentence length, but because of the defendant’s stature in the legal profession.

The U.S. Department of Justice on July 9 announced prison sentences for Neil Suresh Chandran and Bryan Lee in a sweeping investor-fraud case that prosecutors said caused more than $45 million in losses to over 10,000 investors. According to the government, the defendants promoted false narratives about extraordinary company valuations and imminent buyouts, using those claims to induce investments on a massive scale.

The sentencings are notable not only for the size of the alleged fraud, but also for the victim count.

The Alabama State Bar has issued formal ethics guidance on lawyers’ use of artificial intelligence, offering one of the clearest signals yet that AI is no longer just a technology issue for law firms — it is a professional responsibility issue.

The opinion reportedly focuses on two especially sensitive areas: billing and client communication.

Zoom Communications, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening docket IPR2026-00424 on July 24, 2026. While the petition is newly filed and the full merits record is still developing, the case is already worth watching for companies and counsel focused on communications technology, software patents, and parallel district court/PTAB strategy.

At this stage, the key takeaway is straightforward: Zoom is asking the PTAB to reconsider the validity of an issued patent through the IPR process, a forum that remains one of the most important tools for accused infringers facing high-stakes patent assertions.

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00432 on July 20, 2026.

The Justice Department has proposed an antitrust settlement with Willow Bridge Property Company LLC, one of the country’s largest landlords, in a case that underscores a continuing enforcement priority: the use of pricing algorithms and shared competitively sensitive information in rental housing markets.

According to the government, the case centers on allegations that Willow Bridge participated in information sharing and coordination practices affecting apartment rents.

23andMe’s data-breach exposure grew again this week, as a coalition of more than 40 state attorneys general announced they will share in an additional $18 million resolution over alleged unreasonable security practices. The state deal follows a bankruptcy court’s approval of a separate $46.75 million settlement with private claimants, bringing the combined fallout to $64.75 million and underscoring how cyber incidents can trigger overlapping liability across private litigation, regulatory enforcement, and insolvency proceedings.

The underlying civil litigation has been centralized in the Northern District of California as IN RE: 23ANDME, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, a multidistrict proceeding that has become a key docket for watching how courts handle privacy claims tied to alleged security failures involving highly sensitive consumer data.

Meta Platforms has asked the Ninth Circuit to halt proceedings in the trial court while its appeal moves forward, a procedural step that can have outsized strategic consequences in high-stakes litigation. The filing—“Motion to Stay Underlying Proceedings”—signals that Meta believes continued district court activity would undermine the value of the appellate process or impose burdens that cannot be effectively remedied later.

At a basic level, a stay motion asks the appellate court to preserve the status quo.