Government

Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context. Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners. We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to. Recordings come from the courts’ own public releases; Supreme Court timing is derived locally from the Court’s official transcript and audio.

Latest Episodes:

Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 9, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

Netlist is trying to preserve two related patents covering computer-memory modules that use a buffer to connect a controller with separately selectable groups, or ranks, of memory chips. Samsung asked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to review the patents, and Micron companies later joined the challenges. The Board held every challenged claim unpatentable as obvious after combining an earlier buffered-module design by Perego with the JEDEC industry standard for DDR2 memory. Obviousness asks whether a skilled engineer at the time would have had reason to make that combination, rather than reaching it only by using the patents as a hindsight roadmap. Netlist says converting Perego's Rambus-oriented system to a JEDEC module would discard its configurable-width buffer and its ability to translate between otherwise incompatible controllers and memory devices. The appellees answer that Perego was not limited to Rambus, JEDEC dominated the market, and the Board expressly weighed the tradeoffs. The Federal Circuit must decide whether the Board applied the law correctly and whether substantial evidence supports its findings. Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (No. 25-1286) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 9, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1286_09092026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf IPR2023-00455 appeal record and final written decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558581/download-documents?artifactId=mKMTMf_w1qkRk15RHzlx3OHLRR3MCEikTRBb9HhwVfURqUoQ-TkJHa8 IPR2023-00454 appeal record and final written decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550898/download-documents?artifactId=B58pJ0TMsKsw8D42ISEwhkYK5Uiv7u90YKXK2X56TGLsi06swJ3syug IPR2023-00454 and IPR2023-00455 hearing transcript — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550899/download-documents?artifactId=scLlCmhytjVoHaYzJoWB7NC68GM5Lvp983Y_g3LsO7aU-4BHtr06EGk 35 U.S.C. § 103 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title35-section103 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1286 William Milliken — Sterne Kessler: https://www.sternekessler.com/professionals/william-h-milliken/ Robbie Manhas — Orrick: https://www.orrick.com/en/People/7/A/F/Robbie-Manhas

Angelly v. United States — Fed. Cir. (Sep 9, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

Farmers and landowners along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers say Army Corps navigation projects caused longer, more frequent floods during the growing season, sometimes into July. Their Kentucky and Illinois properties had long flooded in winter and spring, but the water usually receded in time for planting. They blame river-training structures, dredging, and the Olmsted Locks and Dam, which began operating in 2018, for changing that pattern, and seek compensation for an alleged taking. Because they sued on July 30, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims' six-year limit makes July 30, 2015 the cutoff. For gradual flooding, the stabilization doctrine delays accrual until it becomes clear that recurring floods have caused a permanent taking and the extent of damage is reasonably foreseeable. In 2023, the claims court refused to dismiss because the government had not directly challenged their allegation that a new flood pattern stabilized after the cutoff. After the government returned with historical river-gauge data, the court dismissed in 2024 for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the landowners had not proved a new pattern. The Federal Circuit must decide whether the claims court used the right legal test and whether the record supports that finding. Angelly v. United States (No. 25-1333) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 9, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1333_09092026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf Angelly v. United States, 165 Fed. Cl. 437 (2023) — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-cv-01641/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-cv-01641-0.pdf Angelly v. United States, 173 Fed. Cl. 768 (2024) — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-cv-01641/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-cv-01641-1.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 2501 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2501 Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1849.OPINION.6-16-2023_2143707.pdf Jamie Robinson — The Bruno Firm: https://www.brunollc.com/team

Cooper v. Collins — Fed. Cir. (Sep 10, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

Veteran John Cooper seeks earlier dates for compensation tied to prostate cancer, diabetes, and a loss-of-use benefit, plus a higher prostate-cancer rating. Veterans Affairs denied his claims in 1997. In 2020, a declassified 1973 Air Force report was added to his file. The Project CHECO report described herbicide use around Thai air-base perimeters; Cooper served at one such base during the Vietnam era. In 2023, the Veterans Court sent the four claims back because the Board had not addressed that report or conflicting medical evidence. The Board then ordered a first-line Veterans Affairs office to determine the report's declassification date and clarify the medical exam. Cooper says the date cannot matter when the report only entered his file in 2020, and the Board should have granted earlier dates under section 3.156(c). That rule can require reconsideration when official service records are added after an earlier denial. Cooper appealed the remand itself. The Veterans Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, calling it interlocutory—preliminary, not final. The Federal Circuit must decide whether the Appeals Modernization Act changed that rule because a remanded claim no longer returns automatically to the Board; the veteran must file a new notice of disagreement. Cooper v. Collins (No. 25-1166) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1166_09102026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf Cooper v. McDonough order, No. 23-5963 — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/CooperJA_23-5963.pdf 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-3/subpart-A/section-3.156 38 C.F.R. § 3.2502 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-3/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFRa3a9ee97d40c028/section-3.2502 38 C.F.R. § 20.800 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-20/subpart-I/section-20.800 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-20/subpart-N/section-20.1100 Federal Circuit appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1166

Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 10, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

Fintiv sued PayPal in 2022, accusing it of infringing a patent on mobile-wallet transactions for people without bank-account access. The patent describes an unbanked user loading cash through an agent, storing electronic value in a mobile wallet, and using the system to withdraw or transfer funds. PayPal challenged the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board found the challenged claims unpatentable, relying chiefly on Tumminaro. Fintiv appealed. The patent expressly defines an unbanked subscriber as someone who does not have, or have access to, a bank or credit-union account. Yet a later passage asks whether that subscriber has enough e-money in a stored-value account or enough money in a bank account. In patent law, lexicography means the patent gives a term its own definition. The judges must decide whether the later passage changes that definition. Fintiv says a mobile wallet is not a bank account and Tumminaro gives its users bank-account access. PayPal says both systems use pooled bank accounts, so Fintiv's reading would exclude the patent's own system. Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. (No. 25-1225) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1225_09102026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf IPR2023-00744 final written decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1553796/download-documents?artifactId=9B5tqdmb-r8H0pTIUrobNqI_IfP-y3POo0gIk194Lf3d7R2MeLQOZGo Fintiv complaint against PayPal — district-court filing preserved in the PTAB record: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1553796/download-documents?artifactId=gHi4kl2TX5C-_i17xCSKLKCcSPV6yC1fRMiqd4a-nk5sB_E47waBYmE U.S. Patent No. 8,538,845 — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/8538845 Federal Circuit appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1225 District-court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6%3A2022cv00288/1165927 Meredith Addy — AddyHart: https://addyhart.com/atty-bio-meredith-addy/ Robert Kang — Winston & Strawn: https://www.winston.com/print/v2/content/1037035/kang-robert-nai-shu.pdf

DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 10, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit reviews three Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings about patents on displaying internet content outside a conventional web browser. DoDots sued Samsung in 2022, accusing Samsung phones and tablets of infringing three patents. The suit began in West Texas, then the Federal Circuit ordered it transferred to Northern California. Meanwhile, Samsung challenged the patents at the Patent Office, and Apple joined those proceedings. The Board found the challenged claims unpatentable, and DoDots appealed. The patents call each display a networked information monitor, or NIM: a configurable frame that retrieves and shows online content. A NIM template supplies the information used to define that frame and its controls. Obviousness asks whether the claimed differences would already have been evident to a skilled practitioner. The appeal turns on claim construction—deciding what the patent's words cover. DoDots says the Board erased three limits: the frame must be fully configurable; the template must define the controls; and a data structure must have structure, not merely data. Samsung and Apple say Brown's earlier system of movable, resizable web-content frames and HTML instructions meets the claims. DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (No. 25-1263) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1263_09102026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf DoDots v. Samsung district-court order — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-6_22-cv-00535/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-6_22-cv-00535-0.pdf Transfer order — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-146.ORDER.12-14-2023_2238203.pdf IPR2023-00701 final written decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554846/download-documents?artifactId=1ljlUUhBr3-34SapkWgS3NQNlR6XcBau_pEjkbrCVhghBvu02IocjIw IPR2023-00756 final written decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554845/download-documents?artifactId=jPN0g6MEI3moIiYNkZGOu379qLusDqytlztx7br68Dr9VmMBkqqYe5k Apple joinder in IPR2023-00621 — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554844/download-documents?artifactId=sOZOUuES3BLfjP4qmq42epgQcijjJvUk48nDJFm-0nPl4P-sKeAzd_0 35 U.S.C. § 103 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title35-section103 Charles E. Fowler Jr. — McKool Smith: https://www.mckoolsmith.com/professionals-Charles_Fowler Michael J. Ballanco — Fish & Richardson: https://www.fr.com/team/michael-ballanco/ Consolidated appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1263

Brock v. Collins — Fed. Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit considers when a 1985 Veterans Affairs benefits decision became final. Air Force veteran Ray Brock sought benefits for ‘nerves’ and ‘delayed stress’ in 1983 and named the Veterans of Foreign Wars as his representative. The regional office denied the claim; the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied PTSD benefits in 1985. Its cover letter was addressed to Brock, but none of the boxes showing a copy to a veterans organization—including the VFW—was checked. Brock reopened the claim in 2008 and later received PTSD benefits from that date. He wants the date moved back to 1983, arguing that the 1985 decision never became final because his representative was not properly notified. The Board and Veterans Court ruled against him. The Veterans Court stressed that neither Brock nor the VFW had said it did not receive the decision, so the claimed mailing error had not been shown to matter. The Federal Circuit is considering whether that court used the correct rules for the presumption of regularity and prejudicial error. The first presumes that officials performed required duties; the second asks whether an alleged mistake could have affected the result. Only the Secretary’s lawyer appears in this recording. Brock v. Collins (No. 24-2375) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 11, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/24-2375_09112026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf Brock v. Collins appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/24-2375 Brock v. Collins case docket — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=23-2020&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y February 2023 Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision — official CAVC record: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/01209541519 Ray Brock’s brief — official CAVC record: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010082156 Secretary’s brief — official CAVC record: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010330776 Ray Brock’s reply brief — official CAVC record: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010483229 June 2024 Veterans Court decision — official CAVC record: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010555904 38 U.S.C. § 7292 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title38-section7292 Galina Fomenkova affiliation — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2325.OPINION.5-22-2023_2130243.pdf

Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit reviews a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision about Centripetal's network-security patent. Data exfiltration means stealing information out of a network; the patent addresses traffic that can look ordinary to a firewall. Its example allows ordinary web browsing but blocks file uploads and form submissions. Centripetal accused Keysight of infringing the patent in 2022. Keysight later challenged all twenty claims before the Board, relying on a Sourcefire intrusion-prevention manual and a file containing more than eleven thousand Emerging Threats rules. The Board found eighteen claims unpatentable for obviousness but left claims five and twelve standing. Obviousness asks whether the claimed differences would have been obvious to a skilled practitioner. Centripetal says the Board never adequately explained why that practitioner would select a commented-out SSL version three rule, enable it, and change it from alerting to blocking traffic. Keysight's cross-appeal says the Board misread its petition when it left the two dependent claims standing based on a separate HTTP POST rule. On factual findings, substantial-evidence review asks whether a reasonable mind could accept the record as adequate; the court does not reweigh the evidence. Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. (No. 25-1052) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 11, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1052_09112026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf U.S. Patent No. 10,567,343 — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/10567343 U.S. Patent No. 10,567,343 searchable record — Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10567343B2/en IPR2023-00446 final written decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board, hosted copy: https://www.ptablitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/IPR2023-00446-FD.pdf IPR2023-00446 patent-owner response — official PTAB record: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550890/download-documents?artifactId=Lq3i_KREiAc5Oi9KOGOnCFtBKkH4NtHX6xzb_U-Obp2Lz1QUXosF-P0 IPR2023-00446 petitioner reply — official PTAB record: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550890/download-documents?artifactId=0he9vB5Z9rwolobAb3hXl4ZcjJltvTKs6F1gzDab_yZV0gj4LYpJvfk Exfiltration definition — National Institute of Standards and Technology: https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/exfiltration 35 U.S.C. § 103 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title35-section103 5 U.S.C. § 706 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title5-section706 Federal Circuit substantial-evidence standard — Stratus Networks v. UBTA-UBET: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1351.opinion.4-14-2020_1569500.pdf Gerard M. Donovan — Reed Smith: https://www.reedsmith.com/our-people/gerard-m-donovan/ Lead appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1052 Cross-appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1103

United States v. David Izsak — 7th Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit reviews David Izsak's bank-fraud convictions. Izsak was a Chicago real-estate professional, and prosecutors said that from 2005 through 2018 he used false financial information, hid unpaid loans, and filed fictitious lien releases that made mortgaged property look debt-free. The transactions included mortgages, vehicle and boat loans, lines of credit, and credit cards; one financed a fifty-seven-foot yacht called the Flying Lady. A jury convicted him on ten counts, and the district judge sentenced him to five years. On appeal, Izsak says the indictment improperly treated those different transactions, involving fourteen financial institutions, as one thirteen-year scheme. Duplicity means charging two or more distinct offenses in one count; the concern is that jurors may agree on guilt without agreeing on the same offense. Izsak wanted a specific-unanimity instruction; the government says one connected pattern tied the transactions together. He also says filing a false lien release did not execute bank fraud because no new money moved, while the government says it exposed lenders to a new risk of loss. Finally, he argues the evidence did not show CGI Finance was a covered financial institution; the government says its relationship with a foreign bank brought it within the statute. United States v. David Izsak (No. 25-1545) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 11, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.25-1545.25-1545_09_11_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Indictment — U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/press-release/file/1188576/dl Sentencing release — U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/chicago-businessman-sentenced-five-years-prison-defrauding-financial-institutions-out Related mortgage-lien record — Appellate Court of Illinois: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/bd7b341e-1d60-4ad7-adbc-1fafb1a5546b/1162443_R23.pdf Verdict and sentence report — CBS Chicago: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/chicago-businessman-5-years-defrauding-financial-institutions-3-million/ Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-1545 18 U.S.C. § 1344 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section1344 18 U.S.C. § 20 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section20 United States v. O'Brien — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-19-01004/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-19-01004-0.pdf

In re WSOU Investments LLC — Fed. Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit reviews the Patent Office's rejection of claims in WSOU Investments' service-based networking patent. The patent tackles IP-address changes: its network layer lets endpoints find one another by service name and keep a connection through the change. Cisco earlier sought inter partes review based on Traversat, a peer-to-peer networking patent. The Board declined to institute review because Cisco used Traversat's peer name in the request but a separate identifier to establish the connection; WSOU's claim requires the same service name in both places. A third party later requested ex parte reexamination. The examiner rejected the claims; the Board reversed those rejections, then entered its own obviousness rejection. Claim construction means deciding what patent language covers. Obviousness asks whether a skilled engineer had reason to make the claimed change and could expect it to work. The appeal asks whether the Board broadened its earlier construction, adequately explained the modification, and properly refused to reopen prosecution. In re WSOU Investments LLC (No. 25-1153) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 11, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1153_09112026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf U.S. Patent No. 9,357,014 — PTAB exhibit: https://ptabdata.blob.core.windows.net/files/2021/IPR2021-00961/v1_Ex.%201001%20-%20US9357014%20%28Shamilian%29.pdf IPR2021-00961 institution decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptabdata.blob.core.windows.net/files/2021/IPR2021-00961/IPR2021-00961%20DI%20FINAL.pdf IPR2021-00961 patent-owner response — Patent Trial and Appeal Board record: https://ptabdata.blob.core.windows.net/files/2021/IPR2021-00961/2021-09-17.%20IPR2021-00961%20POPR.pdf Traversat, U.S. Patent No. 8,359,397 — PTAB exhibit: https://ptabdata.blob.core.windows.net/files/2021/IPR2021-00961/v5_Ex.%201005%20-%20US%208359397%20%28Traversat%29.pdf Ex parte reexamination request — USPTO Official Gazette: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2022/week22/TOC.htm 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-41/subpart-C/section-41.50 Procedure after a new Board rejection — USPTO MPEP § 1214.01: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1214.html Obviousness guidance — USPTO MPEP § 2143: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2143.html 35 U.S.C. § 103 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title35-section103&num=0&edition=prelim U.S. Patent No. 9,357,014 record — Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9357014B2/en Office of the Solicitor — USPTO: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/organizational-offices/office-general-counsel/office-solicitor Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1153

John Tomkins v. Brian Lammer — 7th Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears John Tomkins's challenge to mail policies at the federal prison in Thomson, Illinois. Tomkins filed a habeas petition under section 2241 in June 2025, alleging that the policies violated the First Amendment and asking for an injunction. The public dismissal order does not describe the particular mail restrictions because the court ended the case before deciding whether they were constitutional. Under Glaus v. Anderson, it dismissed without prejudice—allowing a new filing—and told Tomkins to start over with a civil-rights suit governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The procedural stakes include a five-dollar habeas filing fee versus four hundred five dollars for an ordinary civil action before fee relief, plus habeas's faster show-cause timetable. Tomkins will ask the Seventh Circuit to lift Glaus's categorical bar. The judges focus on whether an ordinary injunction suit already provides an adequate remedy, and whether the procedural differences justify changing circuit law. John Tomkins v. Brian Lammer (No. 25-2275) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 11, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.25-2275.25-2275_09_11_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 District docket — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois via Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/3:2025cv50254/479422 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2275 Glaus v. Anderson — Seventh Circuit via Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/408/382/509577/ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2241 28 U.S.C. § 2243 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2243 Federal court filing fees — U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina: https://www.scd.uscourts.gov/Resources/fee.asp FCI Thomson — Federal Bureau of Prisons: https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/tom/

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected