A new post-grant review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could be worth watching for companies and counsel operating in competitive consumer product and health-tech markets. In PGR2026-00051, titled Hyper Ice, Inc., a petitioner has asked the PTAB to review the validity of a recently issued patent associated with Hyper Ice, Inc. The petition was filed on May 26, 2026.

At this early stage, the PTAB docket signals the opening of a post-grant challenge, but practitioners should note that post-grant review itself already says a great deal about the patent at issue.

In a short but useful procedural order, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted the patent owner’s unopposed motion to withdraw existing lead counsel and substitute new lead counsel in PGR2025-00086. The order applies 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, the PTAB rule governing counsel recognition and changes in representation, and reflects the Board’s routine but important emphasis on continuity of representation.

Although the ruling does not break new doctrinal ground, it is a practical reminder that PTAB counsel changes are not automatic.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s docket entry in Entegris, Inc., PGR2026-00037, marks the start of a post-grant review proceeding that practitioners should watch closely. Although a newly filed PTAB matter does not yet provide a final merits ruling, the case is significant because post-grant review remains one of the most powerful mechanisms for attacking recently issued patents on a wide range of grounds, including patent eligibility, written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and novelty or obviousness.

Based on the filing posture, the key issue is not yet who ultimately wins, but what the PTAB will permit the challenger to litigate and how aggressively it will examine the patent under the broader PGR framework.