Toyota Motor Corporation has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00333 on April 7, 2026. At this early stage, the docket identifies Toyota as the petitioner, but practitioners will want to monitor the record closely as the challenged patent, real parties in interest, and the full invalidity theories are fleshed out through the petition and any preliminary response.

An IPR filing is often an early signal of a broader enforcement fight or a parallel district court campaign, making proceedings like this one worth following even before institution.

Microsoft Corporation has filed a new inter partes review petition against QOMPLX LLC at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening a fresh front in what could become an important dispute over patent validity and competitive positioning. The case, Microsoft Corporation v. Qomplx LLC, was filed on April 7, 2026, and is docketed as IPR2026-00325.

At this stage, the PTAB docket reflects the filing of the petition, with Microsoft as petitioner and QOMPLX as patent owner.

Okta, Inc. has launched a new Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding,IPR2026-00327, filed on April 6, 2026. The petition places another technology-focused patent dispute before the PTAB and is one that in-house IP teams, patent litigators, and counsel following the identity and access management space will want to watch closely.

At this early stage, the publicly available docket identifiesOkta, Inc.as the petitioner in an inter partes review, but the full petition and supporting papers will be the key source for confirming thespecific patent being challenged, thepatent owner, and the exactclaims at issue. As is typical in PTAB practice, the petition is expected to lay out the challenged claims, identify the real parties in interest, and present the unpatentability theories based on prior art patents and printed publications.

Inter partes review is a targeted vehicle for attacking issued patent claims under35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. In practical terms, that means the grounds for review in this case will likely turn on whether Okta contends the challenged claims areanticipatedby a single reference orobviousin view of combinations of prior art.