Novel PD-1 Binding Domains

The European Patent Office published patent application EP4314062A1 for novel PD-1 binding domains filed by Merus B.V. and Incyte Corporation. The application, published March 25, 2026, covers immunotherapy-related binding domains classified under C07K 16/28 and designates multiple European member states.

IL-2 fusion polypeptides, Alkermes Pharma Ireland, patent

IL-2 fusion polypeptides, Alkermes Pharma Ireland, patent

Vidal v. Venettozzi - Prison Disciplinary Due Process

The Second Circuit vacated the Southern District of New York's summary judgment in Vidal v. Venettozzi, ruling that Joseph Vidal's 180-270 days in special housing unit (SHU) disciplinary segregation constitutes an atypical and significant hardship that triggers Fourteenth Amendment due process protections. The court held that prison officials must provide inmates procedural safeguards, including the opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence, when imposing such extended segregation.

Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Org. - Civil Litigation

The Second Circuit decided a motion in the consolidated cases of Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization, involving multiple plaintiffs seeking damages against the PLO, Palestinian Authority, and individual defendants for terrorism-related claims. The motion was decided on March 30, 2026, following its filing on August 11, 2025.

Ramsay v Bondi, Second Circuit, March 27

Ramsay v Bondi, Second Circuit, March 27

Application to Set Aside Pearce Release Decision

The Parole Board for England and Wales has set aside its December 12, 2025 decision to direct the release of Mr Pearce, a life sentence prisoner convicted of murder in 2008 whose tariff expired on April 21, 2023. The Secretary of State for Justice successfully applied to set aside the release decision based on new information regarding Mr Pearce's alleged drug use and removal from rehabilitation programmes in January-February 2026. The adjudicator determined the application should have been brought under Rule 28A(4)(ii) as a change in circumstances rather than under Rule 28A(4)(i) for unavailable information.

Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust v AS & Anor - Medical Treatment Best Interests

The Court of Protection (England and Wales) issued a final judgment in [2026] EWCOP 15 (T3) regarding best interests medical treatment decisions for an 83-year-old woman (AS). Peel J ruled on an application by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust seeking declarations regarding continuing risk feeding, ceasing certain treatments, and adopting a palliative care approach. The Official Solicitor supported the application while AS's son, representing the family who opposed it, was joined as Second Respondent. The judgment addresses end-of-life care decisions under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Manchester City Council v M & Ors - Care Proceedings (Sexual Abuse Findings)

The Family Court at Manchester Civil Justice Centre, before Mr Justice Harrison, issued its judgment in care proceedings under section 31 of the Children Act 1989. The court made findings of rape (2015) against the father and sexual abuse of a child aged 3-5. The case (MA24C50995) involved Manchester City Council as applicant seeking care orders regarding four children aged 10, 6, 3, and 2. Judgment was handed down on 1 April 2026.

FXS v Mulberry Bush Organisation Ltd - Battery and False Imprisonment

England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld findings that Mulberry Bush School committed battery (face-down restraints) and false imprisonment (towel incidents) against a vulnerable child pupil. The appellate court affirmed £6,000 compensatory damages and £4,000 aggravated damages for three battery incidents. The negligence claim remained dismissed.

DFB v R - Restraining Order Following Acquittal

The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed an appeal against a Restraining Order made under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 following the Appellant's acquittal on charges including rape and coercive control. The case illustrates procedural difficulties when restraining orders are sought after acquittal without evidence being called and where the complainant does not appear. The Court provided guidance on the proper approach to such applications.