ORITHYIA Trademark Opposition - TTAB91300227

The USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision in opposition TTAB91300227 filed by Orithyia Omada against Pamela Hunt regarding the ORITHYIA trademark. The defendant responded to a Board order/inquiry, and the TTAB issued its decision on April 6, 2026.

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 to Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. The renewed licenses authorize continued operation at reactor core power levels not exceeding 3,411 megawatts thermal. The NRC prepared a Record of Decision supporting the license renewal based on the final supplemental environmental impact statement.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Clinch River Nuclear Unit 1

The NRC issued a final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for Tennessee Valley Authority's Clinch River Nuclear Site Unit 1 construction permit application. The SEIS evaluates environmental impacts of constructing one GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 small modular reactor in Roane County, Tennessee. The document is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML26035A285.

Crop Insurance Agency Interpretation Procedures Amended

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) is amending its regulations to align final agency determination procedures with Supreme Court precedent in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n (2015) and the Administrative Procedure Act. This final rule clarifies that interpretive determinations are not matters of general applicability and removes provisions making such determinations binding on Federal judges and the National Appeals Division. The rule also removes Federal crop insurance policy provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations, effective May 1, 2026.

Klein Engineering v. Thiemann affirmed, Twelfth District

Klein Engineering v. Thiemann affirmed, Twelfth District

State v. Meads - Expungement Denial Affirmed

The Ohio Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the Marion Municipal Court's denial of Nicholas Meads' application to expunge his 2019 disorderly conduct conviction. The appellate court found no error in the trial court's decision, noting that the victim objected to expungement and Meads presented no evidence in support of his petition.

Arotin v. Arotin - Foreclosure and Standing

The Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas judgment in Arotin v. Arotin, denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to defendants on a foreclosure complaint. The case involved an oral contract dispute over property sale and the validity of a quitclaim deed. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision based on standing, parol evidence, and statute of frauds issues.

Vega v. Grafton Corr. Facility - Workers' Comp Unexplained Fall

Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for employee Nancy Vega in a workers' compensation case involving an unexplained fall at Grafton Correctional Facility. The appellate court upheld the trial court's determination that Ms. Vega could participate in the workers' compensation system for her shoulder injury sustained when she lost her balance walking to scan a document.

State v. Barrow - Theft Conviction Affirmed

Ohio Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District, affirmed the conviction of Geoffery Barrow for fifth-degree felony theft. The court held that Barrow waived his right to assert speedy trial provisions by failing to appear at scheduled hearings and that the delay between arrest and indictment did not violate due process. The state presented sufficient evidence including admissions, security footage, and physical evidence.

State v. Evans - Criminal Appeal

The Ohio Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed a kidnapping conviction in State v. Evans based on sufficient evidence and manifest weight of the evidence, while reversing the postrelease control portion of the defendant's sentence. The trial court failed to properly advise the defendant regarding mandatory versus discretionary postrelease control, its duration, and consequences for violation.