Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

Docket: 2:25-cv-03254-JLS-PD

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Alivia Blount’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her employment discrimination action. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard, holding that the district court did not err in denying IFP status because Blount submitted inconsistent information regarding her financial status and failed to explain the discrepancies despite having the opportunity to do so. The practical consequence is that Blount’s appeal is dismissed for failure to pay required fees, and her motion to proceed IFP on appeal is 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

Docket: 3:24-cv-05607-JNW

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Stephen Keith Hicks’s § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from state family court proceedings. The court held that the district court properly dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under this doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear cases that function as a de facto appeal of a state court judgment or are inextricably intertwined with such a decision, meaning federal adjudication would impermissibly undercut the state ruling on the same issues. The appellate court further determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because any amendment would have been futile given the jurisdictional bar. Consequently, the dismissal stands and Hicks’s claim is barred from federal review.

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: 2026-07-30

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision in an inter partes review that claims 1–5, 7–9, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,736,130 are unpatentable because they are anticipated by prior art reference U.S. Patent No. 10,615,925 (“Kwak”). The court applied the substantial evidence standard under the Administrative Procedure Act to review the Board’s factual findings and legal conclusions regarding anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The court rejected G+ Communications’ argument that the Board violated due process by relying on an argument Samsung raised at oral hearing, finding that G+ had adequate notice of the issue because it had previously raised the “comb structure” argument and the relevant “may” language was contained within Kwak itself. Furthermore, the court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that Kwak discloses all claim limitations, including the mapping of predefined sequences to subcarriers. The court reasoned that a prior art reference anticipates a claim even if it does so only in some modes of operation, and credited expert testimony confirming that Kwak’s figures did not necessarily depict a comb structure. As a result, the Board’s decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable stands, and Samsung prevails in the inter partes review proceeding.

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: 2026-07-30

The federal-circuit summarily affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, which had dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to pay the docketing fee after denying him in forma pauperis status. The court applied the three-strikes rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which prohibits a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis if they have had three or more prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate he was under such imminent danger, noting that this issue had been previously resolved in two prior summary affirmances involving the same facts and arguments. Consequently, the judgment is affirmed, all pending motions are denied, and each party bears its own costs.

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: 2026-07-30

The federal-circuit reversed the district court’s claim construction and partial summary judgment of invalidity, vacated the order dissolving a preliminary injunction, and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the district court erred in concluding that distance-related claim terms in U.S. Patent No. 10,866,045 were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because it conflated the definiteness standard with enablement and written description requirements. Applying the *Nautilus* standard, which requires claims to inform those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty, the Federal Circuit determined that the terms were clear on their face, readily measurable using conventional tools, and supported by the specification and prosecution history. The court reasoned that while a skilled artisan might lack sufficient guidance to build an operable device (an enablement issue), the claim terms themselves provided sufficient clarity regarding their scope. Consequently, the district court’s findings of indefiniteness were reversed, leading to the reversal of the summary judgment based on that finding and the vacation of the injunction dissolution. The court also exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the non-appealable Markman and summary judgment orders because they were inextricably intertwined with the appealable order dissolving the preliminary injunction.

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: 2026-07-30

The federal-circuit dismissed the petition for review due to the petitioner’s failure to timely file the Statement Concerning Discrimination on Federal Circuit Form 10, as required by Fed. Cir. R. 15(c)(3), and the docketing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as required by Fed. Cir. R. 52(d). The court also granted the United States Postal Service’s motion to modify the caption to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board as respondent, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), because the Board dismissed the underlying appeal for lack of jurisdiction rather than reaching the merits of the personnel action. The practical consequence is that the petition is dismissed without prejudice to correcting these procedural deficiencies.

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: 2026-07-30

The Federal Circuit vacated the United States Court of Federal Claims’ decision affirming the Board for Correction of Naval Records’ denial of military disability retirement and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the Board’s fitness determination was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider the requisite factors set forth in SECNAVINST 1850.4E § 3304, specifically by not analyzing whether the veteran’s narcolepsy affected his ability to perform common military tasks, deployability, or special qualifications required for nuclear field duty under MANMED § 15-103. Additionally, the court reversed the Federal Claims Court’s dismissal of the veteran’s claims for record correction and reenlistment bonus recoupment as time-barred. The appellate court determined that these claims accrued upon the Board’s final action rather than at the date of discharge, thereby establishing subject matter jurisdiction. On remand, the Board must properly evaluate the § 3304 factors to determine fitness for duty and reconsider whether the veteran is entitled to liberal consideration under the Kurta Memo and 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h) regarding his request to change his discharge narrative.

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: 2026-07-30

The federal-circuit affirmed the United States Court of International Trade’s decision that ten models of Richard Mille wrist watches imported from Switzerland were properly classified under HTSUS heading 9102 rather than heading 9101. The court held that because the watch cases included synthetic sapphire crystal windows on the backs, the cases were not made “wholly of precious metal” as required by Chapter Note 2 to HTSUS chapter 91 for classification under heading 9101. Applying de novo review to the interpretation of tariff terms, the court determined that the crystal backs functioned as part of the watch case housing rather than separate “watch glasses,” meaning the presence of non-precious metal material rendered the watches ineligible for the lower duty rates associated with heading 9101. The practical consequence is that Customs and Border Protection’s classification of the watches under heading 9102, which carries higher duty rates, remains in effect.

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: 2026-07-30

The federal-circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court issued this per curiam decision pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 36, which applies when the panel determines that no reasoned opinion would assist in the development of the law. As a nonprecedential disposition, the ruling confirms the lower court’s outcome without establishing binding legal precedent for future cases.

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: 2026-07-30

Docket: 5:24-CV-03095-JWB-GEB)

The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal and denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court held that the appellant failed to present a nonfrivolous argument on appeal because he did not respond to the district court’s reasoning regarding his Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims for serious medical needs. Specifically, the appellant offered no cognizable argument demonstrating that individual defendants had a sufficiently culpable state of mind or meaningfully addressed municipal liability and other theories. Under the standard for in forma pauperis status, an appeal is not frivolous only if the appellant can make a rational argument on the law or facts; because the appellant failed to challenge the district court’s findings, his arguments were deemed insufficient. As a practical consequence, the appeal is dismissed, and because this constitutes the appellant’s third strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)), he must prepay all filing fees for future civil cases and appeals.

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