Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The sixth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Daniel Tascarella’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent his employer from terminating his employment or interfering with his benefits. The court held that Tascarella failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, an indispensable factor for obtaining such relief under the standard set forth in *Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.* and Sixth Circuit precedent. The court applied a de novo review of legal standards and clear error review for factual findings, determining that the loss of income and employment benefits is quintessentially reparable through monetary damages such as back pay. Although the district court erroneously required Tascarella to prove his case by clear and convincing evidence, the appellate court affirmed the judgment because Tascarella could not establish irreparable harm even under the correct legal standard. The court distinguished Tascarella’s situation from cases involving loss of healthcare access due to financial barriers, noting that he remained eligible for COBRA continuation coverage and Medicare, rendering his alleged medical risks speculative rather than certain and immediate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the merits of the injunction request, and Aptiv’s motion to strike Tascarella’s reply brief was denied as moot.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The dc-circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Department of Justice, holding that the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act (VSST Act) requires all proceeds from British American Tobacco’s criminal penalties and forfeitures to be deposited into the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund. The court interpreted 34 U.S.C. § 20144(e)(2)(A)(i), which mandates that funds from violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) or Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), as well as related criminal conspiracies arising from actions by a state sponsor of terrorism, be deposited into the Fund. The court determined that the statute creates two distinct categories: IEEPA and TWEA violations require no nexus to a state sponsor of terrorism, while “related” offenses do. Because British American Tobacco’s IEEPA conspiracy was charged as a violation of an IEEPA order, all proceeds from it must go into the Fund. Regarding the bank fraud conspiracy, the court held that because the offense originated while North Korea was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, the entire conspiracy “arose from” doing business with a state sponsor of terrorism, requiring all proceeds from that single offense to be deposited into the Fund rather than only those tracing to transactions during the designation period. The case is remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for the plaintiffs.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 3:22-cv-01471-CAB-DDL

The ninth circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Randal Jerome Dalavai’s civil rights claims against various defendants, including the Regents of the University of California and Universal Health Services. The court held that the district court properly dismissed claims against Universal Health Services for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), reasoning that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish state action by a private hospital making medical admission decisions, even when complying with Medicare and Medi-Cal regulations. The court also affirmed the dismissal of claims against Donna Loza and Deo Besana for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient Article III standing, finding the plaintiff could not demonstrate that his injury was traceable to those defendants or that injunctive relief would redress it. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of contingent claims against the Regents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(b) and state-law fraud claims against individual doctors for failure to allege requisite intent or knowledge. The court further upheld the denial of leave to amend as futile, citing preclusion regarding EMTALA claims and the inability to cure deficiencies in standing and state action allegations. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of default judgment on due process grounds, concluding that the plaintiff failed to identify a legitimate claim of entitlement to details of a Department of Public Health investigation. The practical consequence is that the district court’s final judgment dismissing all claims is upheld, and no further litigation on these merits is permitted.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The federal-circuit vacated the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against Import Global, LLC for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,080 and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by relying on an incorrect claim construction in its likelihood of success analysis. Specifically, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court erred in construing the term “backplate” to include a spatial reference requirement relative to the frontplate or wall outlet; instead, the court construed “backplate” as the component forming the cover with the frontplate such that the maximum thickness of the cover is the distance between them at the central portion. Additionally, the court held that the district court improperly construed the term “pin” as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f); because “pin” has a reasonably well-understood meaning in the art and was not defined by function alone, it is not subject to § 112(f) construction. The court also noted that the district court erred to the extent it relied on a presumption of irreparable harm, which was abolished for patent cases following *eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.*, and instructed that any further analysis of irreparable harm must not rely on such a presumption. On remand, the district court is required to re-evaluate the likelihood of success based on the corrected claim constructions.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 3:25-cv-09514-

The ninth-circuit vacated the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of Amazon.com Services, LLC, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA). The court reasoned that Perplexity AI did not “access” Amazon’s computers within the meaning of these statutes because Perplexity’s AI agent, the Assistant, operated as a tool used by individual users to navigate Amazon.com; consequently, it was the users, not Perplexity, who accessed Amazon’s servers. The court applied the rule of lenity, noting that the CFAA is primarily a criminal statute and ambiguity should be construed against liability, particularly given the emerging nature of agentic AI technology. Additionally, the court found that the remaining equitable factors favored Perplexity, as Amazon failed to demonstrate sufficient irreparable harm, the balance of equities tipped against an injunction that would burden a developing technology, and the public interest favored consumer choice over restricting nascent AI development.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The Fourth Circuit dismissed in part and affirmed in part Kewuan Gregg’s appeal regarding two federal sentences. The court dismissed Gregg’s challenge to his 36-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl because it was barred by a valid, knowing, and voluntary appeal waiver contained in his plea agreement. The court applied the standard that while the miscarriage of justice exception exists, it does not apply to claims alleging mere legal error, such as an improper upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines, which is what Gregg asserted. The court affirmed Gregg’s 24-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release for a prior firearm conviction. The court held that the district court satisfied its obligation under *United States v. Patterson* and *United States v. Slappy* to adequately explain its sentencing decision by acknowledging Gregg’s nonfrivolous arguments for a concurrent sentence, considering them, and explaining why they were rejected based on the “particularly egregious” nature of his supervised release violation.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 1:25-CV-00717-LTB-RTG)

The tenth circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s civil rights and RICO action against numerous individual defendants, including local officials and judicial officers. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. Applying the standard of review for dismissals under Rule 41(b), the appellate court concluded that the amended complaint failed to clearly allege who did what to whom, leaving it to the district court to stitch together cognizable claims from a wholly deficient pleading. The practical consequence is that the judgment in favor of the defendants stands, and the plaintiff’s appeal is denied without prejudice to refiling a compliant complaint.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of non-infringement in a patent infringement case involving U.S. Patent Nos. 9,283,174, 9,931,403, and 9,925,264 directed to non-aqueous lidocaine patch compositions. The court held that the district court correctly construed the claim term “dissolving agent” to require a substance that both dissolves the lidocaine and maintains it in a non-crystalline state. Applying the clear-error standard of review, the Federal Circuit determined that the patent specification and prosecution history unambiguously supported this construction, noting that the applicant repeatedly represented during prosecution that the lidocaine was dissolved in the claimed organic acid and polyalcohol combination. Because Aveva’s generic product used a single solvent, n-heptane, rather than the claimed two-component dissolving agent, it did not infringe under either literal infringement or the doctrine of equivalents. The practical consequence is that the final judgment of non-infringement stands, allowing Aveva to proceed with its Abbreviated New Drug Application for a generic version of ZTlido® without liability for patent infringement.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 8:24-cr-00200-WFJ-LSG-5

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of a 188-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, rejecting the defendant’s claims that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Regarding procedural reasonableness, the court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard and held that any potential error in declining to apply a minor-role reduction was harmless because Williams qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b), which mandated an offense level of 34 regardless of such a reduction. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court determined the sentence was reasonable because it fell at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range and below the statutory maximum, and the district court properly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors given Williams’s extensive violent criminal history. The court further found no unwarranted sentencing disparities because the co-defendants cited by Williams were not similarly situated due to their lower criminal history categories and provision of substantial assistance. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The fourth circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a civil rights complaint alleging that a deputy used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and state law after shooting a suspect who was holding a knife. Applying de novo review, the court held that the district court properly considered body camera footage because it blatantly contradicted key factual allegations in the complaint regarding the suspect’s movements and intent. Under the objective reasonableness standard of *Graham v. Connor*, the court determined that the deputy had probable cause to believe the suspect posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm, as the suspect defied commands to drop a weapon, charged toward officers, and lunged at an officer even after being initially shot. Consequently, the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable, precluding a plausible Fourth Amendment claim. The court also affirmed the dismissal of state-law assault, battery, and wrongful death claims, noting that the deputy was entitled to public official immunity because he did not act with malice, and the sheriff could not be held liable under *respondeat superior* for actions that were lawful. The practical consequence is that the complaint remains dismissed, and no further litigation on these merits is permitted.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.