Skechers U.S.A., Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00343 on April 24, 2026. While the publicly available docket caption currently identifies the proceeding by petitioner name, the filing is one worth watching for companies and counsel involved in consumer products, design-adjacent utility patents, and competitive product litigation.

At this stage, the PTAB docket reflects that Skechers U.S.A., Inc. is the petitioner seeking review of an issued patent. The patent owner and the specific patent number being challenged should become clearer as the petition, mandatory notices, and any accompanying exhibits are processed and reflected on the docket. That early procedural posture is itself notable: sophisticated petitioners often move quickly to frame invalidity issues before parallel district court litigation advances too far.

As with any IPR, the core question will be whether Skechers has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The petition will likely set out anticipation and/or obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, supported by prior art patents, printed publications, and expert declarations. For PTAB watchers, the key issues will include how Skechers maps the prior art to the challenged claims, whether any claim-construction disputes emerge early, and whether the patent owner can leverage objective indicia or procedural defenses to resist institution.

Patent practitioners should follow this case for several reasons. First, footwear and apparel disputes increasingly involve a mix of utility, design, and branding rights, and PTAB strategy can materially affect leverage in broader litigation. Second, if the challenged patent concerns product features with strong commercial relevance, the institution decision may offer a useful window into how the Board is evaluating prior art combinations in crowded consumer-product fields. Third, timing matters: the petition’s filing date may signal coordination with district court deadlines, potential stay efforts, or a broader campaign against a competitor’s patent portfolio.

For in-house IP counsel, this proceeding is also a reminder that PTAB filings remain a powerful tool for accused infringers looking to narrow risk, reshape settlement discussions, or eliminate key claims altogether. Even before institution, the petition can reveal how a challenger intends to attack validity and which references it believes are strongest.

We’ll be watching for updates identifying the challenged patent, the patent owner’s preliminary response, and whether the Board institutes review on all or only some grounds. View full case on Docket Alarm.