ATLANTA — Issuing an unpublished Aug. 27 opinion affirming a ruling against a pro se claimant whose long-term disability (LTD) benefits were terminated under an any-occupation definition of disability, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said it was reasonable for the insurer “to rely on the findings of four medical professionals, in conjunction with the independent medical examination and the two vocational assessments, to find that [she] no longer met the definition of disabled under the policy because she could perform sedentary jobs in her area.”

CHICAGO — Saying the appeal required “a straightforward application of one Supreme Court precedent, and a careful analysis of another,” the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a suit that sought a declaration that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempted two parts of a state regulation implementing the Arkansas Pharmacy Benefits Manager Licensure Act.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 26 partly vacated a finding from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that patent claims held by a technology company related to cloud communication were unpatentable as obvious, finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) wrongly construed certain elements of the claims.

SAN FRANCISCO — A California appellate court panel on Aug. 26 affirmed the dismissal of a homeowner’s third amended complaint accusing her insurer of failure to properly investigate a claim in violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), writing that the latest appeal in the long-running case, which was remanded to the trial court after the California Supreme Court deemed the claims not time-barred, is “woefully inadequate” and violates the appellate court’s rules.

OAKLAND, Calif. — In a California federal court multidistrict litigation and a related case, a California federal judge on Aug. 26 approved a proposed consent judgment by numerous states and Meta Platforms Inc. that includes settlement payments of approximately $17 billion that Meta agrees to pay to resolve claims against it by 47 states, the District of Columbia and three U.S. territories alleging that Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to addict youth and misrepresented the platforms’ risks.

MADISON, Wis. — U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowing in-home possession of obscene material bars the government from attempting to convict a man of possession of artificial intelligence-generated child sexual abuse material, a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel said.  In a concurrence, a judge of the court recognized that controlling precedent required the outcome but said that courts would be well served by additional U.S. Supreme Court guidance given technology’s advances since its last ruling.

GULFPORT, Miss. — Noting that he is “bound by” a “prior decision that the presumption against preemption applies” to Mississippi’s Defending Affordable Prescription Drug Costs Act, a federal judge in Mississippi rejected AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP’s claims that the law, which regulates the distribution of drugs purchased through the federal 340B program, is preempted by federal law, granting summary judgment to the state and dismissing the drugmaker’s complaint with prejudice.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A divided Supreme Court stayed an injunction issued in a Massachusetts federal court that barred the Trump administration from implementing provisions of an executive order in 24 states and the District of Columbia that directs the creation of state-specific citizenship lists and changes to the administration of mail-in ballots for the November 2026 elections, ruling that the government is likely to succeed in showing that states challenging the order are doing so prematurely because they lack Article III standing and that leaving the injunction in place would irreparably harm the government by interfering with Executive Branch operations.