Aerospace startups often begin with a dream to provide cheaper, better, or faster solutions for aviation and space flight, and the ambition to make that dream a reality.  Although optimism fuels innovation, as aerospace startups transition from venture funding into public markets, shareholders may misconstrue their forward-looking optimism as actionable promises. Diamond v. Firefly Aerospace Inc., et al. is a putative class action that highlights this tension.

The United Kingdom Public Documents Pilot Scheme (the “Pilot”) will come into force on January 1, 2026 and will be introduced under the new Practice Direction 51ZH “Access to Public Domain Documents” (“PD 51ZH”). The Pilot will significantly expand and facilitate public access to court documents and follows the U.K. Supreme Court judgment of Cape v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 (see also our earlier blog post on this: Can Open Justice Be Too Open? A Review of Proposals to Provide Non-Parties Greater Access to Court Documents in England & Wales | Minding Your Business). A Guidance Note on PD 51ZH has also been published by the Judiciary.

On September 25, in a landmark resolution that underscores the FTC’s renewed focus on digital consumer protection, Amazon agreed to pay $2.5 billion—including a $1 billion civil penalty and $1.5 billion in consumer refunds—under the Settlement Order in FTC v. Amazon.  The case, brought before Judge John H. Chun in the Western District of Washington, targeted Amazon’s Prime subscription program, alleging that the company enrolled consumers without proper consent and made cancellation unnecessarily difficult, in violation of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA).

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) released a shutdown plan dated September 29, 2025, outlining how it will operate during this lapse in appropriations.

FTC Commissioners are presidential appointees and are excepted from furlough during the shutdown. According to the shutdown plan, furloughs will be issued on a rolling basis for…

The rapid expansion of biometric technologies in sports has created both significant opportunities and complex legal challenges. The proliferation of wearable devices and data collection tools has ushered in what amounts to a “gold rush” for athletes, teams, universities, and companies seeking to use or commercialize biometric data. Heart rate variability, fatigue indicators, movement efficiency, and other performance metrics are increasingly captured in real time and treated as valuable commercial assets.

The practice of serially filing continuation applications through a patent’s lifetime has come under increased pressure in recent years from newly implemented continuing application fees to expanded case law on non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. A somewhat new interpretations of the doctrine of prosecution laches emerging from Sonos, Inc. v. Google, LLC in late 2023, however, that threatened an outright repudiation of the practice late into a patent’s 20-year term. In a post-trial motion, District Court Judge William H. Alsup set aside a $32.5M jury verdict that Google infringed Sono’s 10,469,966 and 10,848,885 patents, finding the patents unenforceable due to a 13-year delay from the priority date to the filing of the continuation applications that resulted in the patents at issue. Recently a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) panel of Chief District Judge Bumb and Judges Lourie and Prost reversed the finding of laches as unsupported by the evidence nonprecedential decision, stopping short of repudiating the possibility of finding laches for continuation applications filed late into a patent’s 20-year term.