Google LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00418 on July 30, 2026. At this stage, the publicly available docket information identifies Google as the petitioner, but the filing summary does not yet provide the full patent details or the patent owner name in the case caption. Even so, the petition is worth watching closely: when a repeat PTAB user like Google initiates a fresh challenge, practitioners can expect a closely constructed invalidity case and potentially useful guidance on institution trends, prior art combinations, and claim strategy.

In an IPR, the petitioner asks the Board to review the patentability of issued claims, typically on anticipation and/or obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on patents and printed publications. While the specific challenged patent number and asserted references are not apparent from the basic docket entry alone, those details should become central as the petition, exhibits, and any preliminary response are fully reflected on the docket. Counsel following the matter will want to identify which claims Google targeted, how the petition frames the level of ordinary skill in the art, and whether the challenge raises familiar PTAB issues such as claim construction, motivation to combine, or objective indicia of nonobviousness.

The case is also notable because proceedings involving major technology companies often have significance beyond the individual patent at issue. A Google-filed IPR can intersect with parallel district court litigation, licensing disputes, standard technology implementation, or broader portfolio pressure. For patent owners, the proceeding may offer an early read on how vulnerable related claims are to prior art attacks. For accused infringers and portfolio managers, it may reveal useful arguments, expert positions, and estoppel considerations that could shape strategy in other forums.

Patent practitioners should also monitor the timing and procedure in this case. The Board’s institution decision, if one issues, may shed light on how the PTAB is handling discretionary denial questions, claim-specific briefing, and evidentiary sufficiency in 2026-era petitions. If the patent owner files a robust preliminary response, the case could become a meaningful reference point for parties assessing whether to fight at institution or reserve key arguments for trial.

For now, IPR2026-00418 is in its earliest phase, but it already deserves a spot on the watchlist for PTAB litigators, in-house IP counsel, and anyone tracking how sophisticated petitioners are shaping post-grant review strategy.

View full case on Docket Alarm

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00408, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on July 28, 2026, under the caption Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. For patent practitioners tracking battery-sector disputes and PTAB filing trends, this is a proceeding worth watching as the record develops.

At this early stage, the publicly available docket information identifies the petitioner as Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd., but the initial case caption alone does not yet provide the full picture of the challenged patent, the patent owner, or the specific prior-art combinations being asserted. Those details typically emerge from the petition, mandatory notices, and any later institution decision. Even so, the filing itself is notable: a battery company has turned to the PTAB, signaling a potentially significant validity fight involving energy-storage technology, supply-chain leverage, or parallel district court or ITC litigation strategy.

Once the petition materials are available, key items for counsel to examine will include:

• the patent being challenged and the scope of its claims, particularly whether they cover cell design, electrolyte formulations, manufacturing processes, charging controls, or battery-pack integration;
• the identity of the patent owner and any real parties in interest, which can affect estoppel, related-case strategy, and discretionary denial arguments;
• the asserted grounds for review, including whether the petitioner relies on anticipation, obviousness, or a combination of technical references and expert testimony; and
• any overlap with co-pending litigation, which may shape briefing on institution under the PTAB’s discretionary doctrines.

Why should IP counsel follow this case? First, battery technology remains one of the most active and commercially important patent areas, with innovation spanning consumer electronics, electric vehicles, and grid storage. PTAB decisions in this space can influence settlement posture, licensing negotiations, and freedom-to-operate analyses well beyond the parties to a single dispute.

Second, for patent prosecutors and portfolio managers, the arguments in the petition may highlight pressure points in battery-related claim drafting — especially around functional limitations, parameter ranges, and process steps that can be vulnerable to obviousness attacks. And for litigators, the case may offer another data point on how petitioners frame technical invalidity theories in a fast-moving industry where prior art can be both global and highly specialized.

As the docket fills in, this proceeding should provide a clearer view of the challenged claims, the prior-art story, and any broader competitive context behind the filing.

View full case on Docket Alarm

A federal judge has reportedly voided a settlement involving the IRS and former President Donald Trump, a ruling that could have consequences well beyond the parties to the agreement. At a high level, the decision appears to turn on whether the settlement was lawfully structured and whether the government actors involved had the authority to bind the IRS in the manner they did.

That makes this more than a political headline. For litigators and tax practitioners, the ruling underscores a recurring and consequential issue: when the government settles, what approvals, statutory constraints, and agency-specific procedures must be satisfied for the deal to hold up in court?

If a federal court sets aside an IRS settlement on authority or process grounds, it creates immediate uncertainty for taxpayers negotiating with Treasury, the Department of Justice, and other federal agencies. Settlement finality is a core value in tax controversy practice. A decision invalidating a high-profile agreement may invite closer scrutiny of delegated authority, internal approvals, and the interaction between executive branch officials and agencies with their own statutory mandates.

For in-house counsel and compliance teams, the case is a reminder that government resolutions can carry legal risk even after execution. Companies resolving tax disputes, False Claims Act matters, or regulatory investigations often focus on payment terms and release language; this development highlights the equal importance of validating who has authority to approve the deal, what procedures were followed, and whether the agreement is vulnerable to later challenge by third parties, watchdog groups, or successor officials.

The ruling may also reverberate in administrative law. Courts have shown sustained interest in policing agency action, especially where separation-of-powers concerns or statutory limits are implicated. If the judge’s reasoning rests on ultra vires action, improper delegation, or a failure to comply with governing tax statutes, practitioners should expect the opinion to be cited in future disputes over agency settlements and executive influence on enforcement outcomes.

For government-facing litigators, the practical takeaway is straightforward: build a record on settlement authority. Confirm the source of agency power, identify required sign-offs, and document compliance with applicable regulations and internal procedures. For tax advisors, this may become part of diligence in evaluating whether a negotiated resolution is durable enough to support financial reporting and reserve decisions.

Even if the ruling is appealed, the immediate impact is significant. It signals that courts may be willing to look past the face of a settlement and examine the legality of how it came together. In an environment of increasingly aggressive judicial review, that is a development legal professionals cannot afford to ignore.