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of Chief District Judge Bumb and Judges Lourie and Prost reversed the finding of laches as unsupported by the evidence nonprecedential decision, stopping short of repudiating the possibility of finding laches for continuation applications filed late into a patent’s 20-year term.

The California legislature’s efforts to streamline the discovery process, promote transparency and fairness in civil proceedings, and reduce discovery abuse began in 2019, when California Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) § 2016.090 was amended to provide for initial disclosures, but only if the parties stipulated to such an exchange. Unsurprisingly, the rule change had little impact, as very few parties agreed to make the exchange. In 2023, legislation was passed to make the exchange potentially involuntary—now every party to the action must make initial disclosures so long as any other party demands them. 

The forum defendant rule normally bars removing a state case to federal court when there is a forum defendant, even if the parties are otherwise diverse. A rarely-used method is the exception to this rule. Using a procedure called snap removal, defendants can avoid the forum defendant rule by removing before the forum defendant is served.