A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00343, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on April 24, 2026, naming Skechers U.S.A., Inc. in the proceeding. While the publicly available docket caption confirms the filing and the involvement of Skechers, practitioners should note that the PTAB docket at this early stage may not yet reflect the full set of pleadings needed to identify every asserted claim, the specific patent owner alignment, or the complete invalidity theories in detail.

Even so, this filing is worth watching. PTAB petitions involving major consumer brands like Skechers often arise in the shadow of parallel district court litigation, licensing disputes, or broader portfolio enforcement strategies. For in-house IP counsel and patent litigators, an IPR filing can quickly become the center of gravity in a dispute, particularly where the challenged patent relates to commercially important product features in the footwear space.

Based on the nature of PTAB proceedings, the petition likely challenges one or more claims of a U.S. patent on the familiar statutory grounds available in inter partes review: anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, using patents and printed publications as prior art. Those grounds are often accompanied by detailed expert declarations and claim construction positions that can influence not only institution, but also related infringement actions and settlement posture.

For patent practitioners, the case bears monitoring for several reasons. First, if the petition targets product-design or functional footwear claims, the proceeding may offer another data point on how the PTAB evaluates prior art in fashion-adjacent and consumer-product technologies. Second, the institution decision may provide useful guidance on discretionary denial issues, especially if there is related district court activity. Third, any claim construction disputes or objective indicia arguments could be instructive for parties handling patents that blend utility, design, and branding considerations.

The case is also a reminder that PTAB strategy remains a critical part of modern patent disputes. Whether this petition becomes a straightforward prior-art challenge or develops into a more significant fight over claim scope and secondary considerations, it has the potential to matter well beyond the immediate parties.

As the docket develops, counsel will want to watch for the petition itself, any mandatory notices identifying related matters, the patent owner preliminary response, and ultimately the Board’s institution analysis.

View full case on Docket Alarm