Posts in Circuit Courts of Appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied certiorari in Frederick L. Allen, et al. v. Joshua Stein, Governor of North Carolina, a decade-plus long case that led to a Supreme Court decision as well as the introduction and subsequent repeal of a law to shield North Carolina from copyright liability. In January 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued the most recent ruling in the case, which related to Frederick (“Rick) Allen’s copyright battle against the State of North Carolina over documentary footage of a state-sponsored salvage project exhuming a shipwreck associated with the famed pirate, Blackbeard. Videographer Frederick Allen and his company Nautilus Productions recorded footage of a private company’s project to salvage Blackbeard’s flagship Queen Anne’s Revenge from the North Carolina coastline.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of Judge Pauline Newman’s petition for certiorari in June, the Chief Justice of the United States has transferred Newman’s judicial misconduct case to the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council. Newman has been asking for her case to be transferred for more than three years. According to an Eleventh Circuit Order published today, the Chief Justice transferred Newman’s complaint “and any pending or new complaints relating to the same subject matter” to the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council on August 19, 2026.

On Tuesday, news reports indicated that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling under seal affirming the District of Delaware’s grant of partial summary judgment to Canadian technology company Thomson Reuters on its claims that legal artificial intelligence (AI) company ROSS Intelligence infringed upon more than 2,000 copyrighted headnote summaries of U.S. case law from its Westlaw legal research platform.

A songwriter told the U.S. Supreme Court this week to reject an attempt by the four largest music companies in the world to reverse a Fifth Circuit ruling granting him all rights to the 1966 Swingin’ Medallions single, “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love).” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in January 2026 in Vetter v. Resnick, affirming the Middle District of Louisiana’s grant of summary judgment declaring that Cyril Vetter, co-author of “Double Shot,” and Vetter’s affiliated companies are the sole owners of the copyright to the song throughout the world.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Friday that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed by T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. against KAIFI LLC arising from a dispute over a patent settlement agreement, transferring the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In T-Mobile US, Inc. v. KAIFI LLC, Circuit Judge Chen authored the opinion for a panel that included Circuit Judges Taranto and Schall, concluding that the underlying disagreement over settlement contract language did not necessarily raise a substantial question of patent law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit yesterday rejected Boeing’s bid to revisit its August 2025 ruling in favor of electric-aircraft startup Zunum Aero, holding that Boeing’s patent-inventorship counterclaims did not strip the Ninth Circuit of jurisdiction over the trade secret dispute. The Ninth Circuit panel denied Boeing’s petition for panel rehearing after concluding that its patent counterclaims were “permissive” rather than “compulsory”, and therefore not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling answering multiple questions of first impression regarding copyright claims involving building plans, including the scope of protection under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) for constructed buildings and floorplan renderings. Vacating the Western District of Texas’ dismissal of Kipp Flores Architects’ (KFA) copyright infringement claims, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of KFA’s claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) over alleged failures to include copyright management information (CMI) on new floorplans developed from KFA’s technical drawings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction in a decision on August 13 barring Meritain Health, Inc., ProAct, Inc., Rx Valet, LLC, Advanced Pharmacy, LLC, Aqua Enterprise Inc., and Gregory Santulli from importing, advertising, or facilitating the importation of foreign-market Gilead Sciences, Inc. medications into the United States. Judge Agee wrote the opinion on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, joined by Judge Harris and Senior Judge Keenan.

Trade secrets occupy a unique position among the major forms of intellectual property. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are, by design, defined and publicly registered, and can be consulted to determine exactly what is claimed. In contrast, trade secrets depend on their being undisclosed. This creates a structural problem the moment a trade secret owner goes to court. Because they are secret, they cannot be identified in public filings without destroying the very subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim. On the other hand, defendants must understand what the secrets are and what they’ve allegedly misappropriated. In addition, the court needs to know what the case is about to manage it.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a published ruling reversing the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona’s entry of permanent injunction for distiller Jack Daniel’s in the long-running trademark case involving VIP Products’ Bad Spaniels dog toy. This latest chapter in the decade-plus-long case remands the decision back to the district court with orders to enter judgment in favor of defendant VIP Products after finding that Jack Daniel’s did not meet its burden to show dilution by tarnishment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Comet Technologies USA, Inc. v. XP Power, LLC, overturned Comet Technologies’ $40 million trade secret verdict against XP Power and ordered a new trial, finding that the district court erroneously instructed the jury that the defendant bore the burden of proving that Comet’s trade secrets were readily ascertainable by proper means. The court held that the error was not harmless because the instructions were not accurate as a whole, and nothing in the jury’s verdict shed light on how it would have ruled under a correct instruction. The case is notable both for clarifying what “readily ascertainable” means and for spotlighting a burden-of-proof distinction between the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) that practitioners should not overlook.

On December 31, 1959, Calixto Lopez led armed men into the Arechabala family’s rum distillery in Cárdenas, Cuba. The family had made rum there since 1878, building Havana Club into a brand whose English name reflected its success in the U.S. market. According to testimony Ramón Arechabala gave the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004, Lopez pointed a machine gun at him and announced he was taking over as “Pepe,” the nickname of the company’s president and Ramón’s uncle. The family’s rum business now belonged to the Cuban government.

This week, several amicus briefs were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit supporting defendant-appellees Amgen in an antitrust suit brought by rival pharmaceutical firm Sandoz, which is appealing the dismissal of its complaint by the Eastern District of Virginia. Amici, including former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel, free market institute Washington Legal Foundation, and trade organizations representing the pharmaceutical industry, all strongly urge the Fourth Circuit to dismiss Sandoz’s attempt to circumvent adverse patent rulings with an overly broad antitrust theory that would disrupt the entire U.S. patent system.

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Apple Inc.’s appeal of a civil contempt finding stemming from its App Store dispute with Epic Games, Inc. The case centers on a 2021 injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and a subsequent contempt order tied to Apple’s commission structure on external purchases.