A new inter partes review proceeding, IPR2027-00030, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 30, 2026, captioned Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd. For patent litigators, portfolio managers, and in-house IP counsel, this is a matter worth watching early—especially because PTAB filings can quickly reshape parallel district court litigation, licensing leverage, and claim scope strategy.

At this stage, the publicly available docket information identifies the proceeding title, forum, and filing date, but does not yet provide the full set of details practitioners typically look for at first glance, such as the specific patent number being challenged, the named patent owner and petitioner alignment, or the precise prior-art grounds asserted in the petition.

A new inter partes review proceeding, IPR2027-00030, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 30, 2026, under the caption Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd. As of the current docket entry, the publicly available case title identifies Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd., but practitioners should watch for additional filings that clarify the full party alignment, including the petitioner, patent owner, and the specific patent being challenged.

At this early stage, the PTAB docket signals the opening move in what could become an important dispute in the 3D imaging, scanning, or related hardware/software space.

A new inter partes review, IPR2027-00029, has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 30, 2026, in a proceeding titled Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd. At this early stage, the docket signals the opening of a potentially important dispute for companies operating in the 3D scanning, additive manufacturing, and digital modeling space.

Based on the currently available docket information, the proceeding centers on a challenge to a patent associated with or asserted against Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd. As with any newly filed IPR, the key questions for practitioners will be: which claims are targeted, what prior art has been raised, and whether the petition frames a broader strategy tied to district court litigation, ITC proceedings, or licensing negotiations.

The PTAB docket entry identifies the case and filing date, but practitioners should expect the most significant details to emerge through the petition and subsequent papers.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. has launched a new inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00517 on October 30, 2026.

A new inter partes review, IPR2027-00030, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 30, 2026, in a proceeding captioned Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd. For patent litigators, prosecution counsel, and in-house IP teams tracking the overlap between district court disputes and PTAB validity challenges, this is a case worth watching as the record develops.

At this early stage, the docket information publicly available from the case caption and filing entry confirms the filing of the petition, but key details practitioners will want—most notably the specific patent being challenged, the identity of the patent owner and petitioner as reflected in the petition papers, and the precise statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103—will come into sharper focus as the PTAB docket fills out with the petition, mandatory notices, and any preliminary response.

That said, the filing itself is significant.

Intuit Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2027-00017, filed on October 19, 2026. At this early stage, the docket identifies the proceeding under Intuit’s name, but practitioners will want to watch closely for the petition, mandatory notices, and any subsequent filings that clarify the patent owner, the challenged patent number, and the specific prior-art combinations at issue.

As of the current docket entry, the case is notable less for a fully developed merits record and more for what it signals: another sophisticated technology company turning to the PTAB as part of its patent defense strategy.

A newly filed inter partes review, IPR2027-00013, puts Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. back before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a proceeding that patent litigators and in-house IP teams will want to watch closely. The petition was filed on October 14, 2026, and, at least from the current docket caption, the proceeding is styled under Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.

At this early stage, the publicly available case details identify the forum, docket number, and filing date, but do not yet provide the full set of details practitioners typically look for at filing—most importantly, the specific patent number being challenged, the identity of the petitioner if different from the captioned party, and the asserted prior-art grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.

A new post-grant review, PGR2027-00004, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 10, 2026, naming Shenzhen Torras Technology Co., Ltd. in the proceeding. For patent litigators, portfolio managers, and in-house IP counsel, this is the kind of early-stage PTAB matter worth watching closely—particularly because post-grant review can put a broad range of patentability issues in play well beyond the prior-art combinations typically seen in inter partes review.

At this stage, the docket identifies the proceeding by title but does not, from the case caption alone, reveal the full patent number, the petitioner’s identity, or the specific claims challenged.

A new inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, IPR2027-00003, was filed on October 2, 2026, naming Shenzhen Lanhe Technologies Co., Ltd in the case caption. Although the currently available docket entry provides only limited public-facing detail, the filing itself is worth watching for patent litigators, portfolio managers, and in-house IP counsel tracking PTAB activity involving overseas technology companies and potentially high-volume enforcement targets.

At this stage, the caption indicates that the challenged patent is associated with Shenzhen Lanhe Technologies Co., Ltd., but practitioners should note that additional filings will be needed to confirm the specific patent number, the identity of the petitioner, and the complete set of asserted grounds.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s October 1, 2026 order in IPR2025-01250 grants the Patent Owner’s motions to seal, reinforcing a familiar but important PTAB principle: while Board proceedings are presumptively public, targeted protection remains available for genuinely confidential business information.

Although this order is procedural rather than merits-based, it matters because sealing disputes often shape how parties present technical and commercial evidence in inter partes review.

Luxottica of America Inc. has filed a new inter partes review, IPR2026-00512, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on September 29, 2026. At this early stage, the filing itself is the key development: it signals that Luxottica is turning to the PTAB to challenge the validity of an asserted patent rather than limiting the fight to district court litigation or licensing negotiations.

Based on the docket caption, Luxottica of America Inc. is the petitioner.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s October 1, 2026 order in IPR2025-01254 is a useful reminder that while PTAB proceedings are presumptively public, the Board will protect genuinely confidential business information when the movant makes a sufficient showing. In this order, the Board granted the Patent Owner’s motions to seal, allowing certain materials to remain non-public under the applicable protective framework.

Although the order appears procedural rather than merits-driven, it matters because sealing disputes frequently shape how parties present technical and commercial evidence in inter partes review.

The Federal Circuit entered an order dismissing the appeal arising from IPR2024-01403, a procedural outcome that may look modest on its face but still carries practical significance for patent litigators tracking PTAB matters and appellate deadlines. The docket entry indicates a Federal Circuit order dismissing the appeal, rather than a merits decision addressing patentability, claim construction, or institution-related issues.

Because this appears to be an order of dismissal rather than a precedential opinion, the key takeaway is procedural: the appellate process ended without a substantive ruling from the Federal Circuit on the underlying PTAB dispute.

Salesforce, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00476 on September 24, 2026. The petition opens another closely watched PTAB dispute for technology and software-focused patent practitioners, particularly those tracking how enterprise software companies are using the Board to challenge issued patents that may affect core platform, customer relationship management, or cloud-based business tools.

At this stage, the public docket identifies the proceeding under the title Salesforce, Inc., but practitioners will want to monitor the record for the challenged patent number, the patent owner’s identity, and the specific prior-art combinations asserted in the petition as those details become available through the docket.

Salesforce, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00477 on September 24, 2026. Although the public docket caption identifies the petitioner as Salesforce, the filing is notable for what it may reveal about the company’s broader patent defense strategy and the kinds of prior-art arguments now being tested at the PTAB.

At this stage, the basic procedural posture is clear: Salesforce is asking the Board to review the validity of an issued U.S. patent through the IPR process, which allows petitioners to challenge patent claims on anticipation and obviousness grounds based on patents and printed publications.