No. 25-1395October Term 2025Petition Pending
Azad Alamgir Kabir, Petitioner v. WebMD LLC
Azad Alamgir Kabir, representing himself, asks the Supreme Court to review whether federal courts’ limits on electronic filing for pro se litigants unfairly delay their filings compared with those of represented parties.
Case status
- Current stage
- Petition Pending
- Latest event
- Petition pending
- Decision timing
- No decision timeline until the Court agrees to hear the case.
- What it's about
Azad Alamgir Kabir, representing himself, asks the Supreme Court to review whether federal courts’ limits on electronic filing for pro se litigants unfairly delay their filings compared with those of represented parties. The petition also challenges the paper-filing requirement as applied to a distant inventor litigating a complex intellectual-property case against WebMD LLC.
Question presented
1. Whether the systematic denial of Electronic Case Filing (ECF) access to pro se litigants violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment by creating a discriminatory two-tiered system that grants represented parties instantaneous docketing while subjecting self-represented litigants to a 5-to-12-day “ paper-filing blockade, ” dispropor tionately impacting minority communities and small inventors. 2. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3)(B)(i) is unconstitutional as applied to a geo graphically distant pro se inventor in a complex intel lectual property case, where the mandatory use of pa per-filing creates a “ procedural vacuum ” that allows institutional defendants to exploit timing asymme tries and moot opposition before it is even docketed. 3. Whether the venue doctrine articulated in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U. S. 258 (2017), when combined with restrictive local procedural regimes and unequal electronic ac cess, violates the.
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit / Petition pending
- Area
Civil Rights
Briefing
What it's about
Azad Alamgir Kabir asks the Supreme Court to review claims that denying electronic filing access to self-represented litigants creates unequal access to federal courts. The petition also challenges the paper-filing requirement for a distant inventor in a complex intellectual-property case.
Argument
The case is pending, and oral argument has not been scheduled. Kabir's petition argues that limits on electronic filing and required paper filing create unequal timing advantages for represented institutional parties.
Impact
A self-represented person who must mail papers may face days of delay while a represented party files instantly online. Kabir argues those delays can affect whether a court sees an objection before taking action.
What is at stake in Kabir v. WebMD?
The petition challenges whether self-represented litigants can be required to use paper filing while represented parties file electronically and immediately.
Who could be affected by the electronic-filing dispute?
Self-represented people, including distant inventors in complex cases, could face delays when they must mail court papers instead of filing online.
What happens next in Kabir v. WebMD?
The Supreme Court will take its next scheduling step on the petition. Oral argument has not been scheduled, and no decision timing is available.
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Sep 2, 2026
- Method
- Methodology