Apple Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00500 on September 19, 2026. For patent litigators and in-house IP teams, the case is worth watching not only because of the petitioner’s profile, but also because early PTAB filings often signal parallel district court strategy, licensing pressure points, or a broader campaign against a patent family.

At this stage, the publicly available case caption identifies Apple Inc. as the petitioner, but the initial docket details provided here do not specify the patent owner or the patent number being challenged.

A new post-grant review, PGR2026-00074, has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against MightySlab Distribution Company LLC, putting one of the company’s patents directly in the PTAB spotlight. The petition was filed on September 9, 2026. For patent litigators, prosecutors, and in-house IP counsel, this is the kind of early-stage PTAB matter worth monitoring closely as the record develops.

At this stage, the publicly available docket information identifies the proceeding by the patent owner’s name, but the key practical takeaway is clear: a petitioner is seeking post-grant review of a recently issued patent owned by MightySlab Distribution Company LLC.

Zoom Communications, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00470 on September 2, 2026. The proceeding adds another potentially significant dispute to the PTAB docket and is one that patent litigators, prosecution counsel, and in-house IP teams may want to track closely.

At this stage, the publicly available docket information identifies Zoom Communications, Inc. as the petitioner, but the initial case caption does not, by itself, reveal the patent owner or the patent number being challenged.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00469, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on September 3, 2026, opening what could become an important dispute for patent owners, petitioners, and portfolio managers watching PTAB filing trends. The proceeding is captioned EverWave Inc., indicating that EverWave is central to the challenged patent dispute.

At this early stage, the docket entry signals the start of a PTAB challenge but does not, from the case caption alone, reveal the full set of party details, the specific patent number at issue, or the precise statutory grounds asserted in the petition.

Google LLC has filed a new inter partes review, IPR2026-00440, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on August 27, 2026, opening another front in what may become a closely watched patent dispute. At this stage, the docket identifies Google as the petitioner, but practitioners should note that early PTAB filings sometimes provide only limited public-facing party details until the petition and related papers are fully available through the record.

What we know now is that this proceeding is aimed at challenging the validity of an issued patent through the PTAB’s administrative review process.

Apple has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00437 on August 17, 2026. At this stage, the publicly available docket information is limited, but the filing itself is noteworthy for patent litigators and in-house IP teams tracking how major technology companies are using PTAB proceedings as part of broader enforcement and defense strategies.

The proceeding is captioned Apple Inc., indicating Apple is the petitioner seeking review of an issued patent.

A new post-grant review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could be one to watch for companies operating in the dental implant and broader medical-device space. On August 11, 2026, Straumann USA, LLC filed PGR2026-00070, asking the PTAB to review a recently issued patent.

Google LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2026-00429, opening another closely watched front in the company’s broader patent defense strategy. The proceeding, filed on July 29, 2026, is captioned simply Google LLC, but as with any PTAB matter, the key questions for patent practitioners will be which patent claims are under attack, what prior art combinations are being asserted, and whether the Board views the petition as a strong candidate for institution.

At this early stage, the docket signals the beginning of the challenge rather than its resolution.

Google LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00418 on July 30, 2026.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00448, was filed on July 29, 2026, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and is captioned Dolby Laboratories, Inc. For patent litigators and in-house IP teams, the filing is worth watching not only because Dolby is a well-known player in audio and media technology, but also because PTAB challenges involving established portfolio owners often carry broader implications for parallel district court strategy, licensing leverage, and portfolio durability.

At this early stage, the public caption identifies the proceeding by the patent owner name, but the currently available case details do not yet specify in the docket summary which particular patent claims are being challenged, who the petitioner is, or the precise statutory grounds asserted.

Zoom Communications, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00411 on July 10, 2026. For patent litigators and in-house IP counsel, this is the kind of early-stage PTAB matter worth adding to a watchlist, especially because the petition may signal broader invalidity and defense strategy in parallel district court or licensing disputes.

At this stage, the public docket identifies the petitioner as Zoom Communications, Inc., but key details practitioners will want to monitor closely include the specific patent being challenged, the real parties in interest, and the prior-art grounds asserted in the petition. In a newly filed IPR, those details often frame the entire contest: which claims are targeted, whether the challenge relies on anticipation or obviousness theories under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and how the petitioner positions its expert declarations and claim constructions from the outset.

Once the petition materials are fully available, counsel should focus on several familiar but consequential PTAB issues.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00416, was filed on July 9, 2026, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board naming McCormick Company, Inc. as the patent owner.

Zoom Communications, Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00407 on July 1, 2026. The proceeding is now on the radar for patent litigators and in-house IP teams tracking how major technology companies continue to use PTAB practice as part of broader litigation and risk-management strategy.

At this early stage, the docket identifies Zoom Communications, Inc. as the petitioner, but the public caption does not yet reveal the patent owner in the case title.

A new post-grant review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is worth watching for practitioners tracking early-life patent challenges and the evolving use of PTAB proceedings against recently issued patents. In PGR2026-00064, titled ShoreShade LLC, the petition was filed on July 1, 2026. The proceeding is now on the radar for patent owners, petitioners, and IP counsel evaluating how aggressively to use post-grant review in high-stakes disputes.

At this stage, the docket caption identifies ShoreShade LLC as the patent owner in the PTAB proceeding.

A new post-grant review, PGR2026-00062, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on June 25, 2026, in a matter captioned America Ugreen Limited. While the publicly available docket caption immediately identifies Ugreen as a party, patent professionals will want to watch for the petition, mandatory notices, and patent owner filings to clarify the full party alignment, the challenged claims, and the commercial context behind the dispute.

At this stage, the key takeaway is procedural as much as substantive: a post-grant review is only available for patents subject to the AIA’s first-inventor-to-file regime and allows challengers to press a broader range of invalidity theories than inter partes review.