The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a precedential opinion in appeal No. 25-1602 on May 12, 2026, signaling that the panel intended its ruling to carry weight beyond the immediate dispute. For practitioners, that designation alone matters: unlike an unpublished disposition, a precedential Sixth Circuit opinion is binding on district courts within the circuit and will likely shape briefing strategy in future appeals.

At a high level, the court resolved the issues presented in a published format, which means the panel concluded the case addressed a legal question significant enough to warrant a citable, authoritative ruling.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a precedential opinion on May 8, 2026, in docket number 25-1873. Although the docket information currently identifies the matter only as “Precedential Opinion,” the designation alone is significant for litigators: unlike unpublished dispositions, a precedential Sixth Circuit ruling becomes binding authority within the circuit and is likely to shape briefing, motion practice, and district court decision-making going forward.

At a minimum, practitioners should treat this opinion as one requiring immediate review for any issue overlap with active matters in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

The Seventh Circuit’s May 7, 2026 disposition in Nonprecedential Disposition (civil), No. 25-1488, is a reminder that even when an appeal does not produce a published opinion, it can still offer useful guidance for litigators on appellate standards, preservation, and the practical limits of review.

The Ninth Circuit’s May 7, 2026 civil opinion by Judge McKeown appears to be a useful procedural decision for litigators focused on preserving issues for appeal and understanding the scope of appellate review. Although the docket entry does not itself provide the full factual background, the opinion is notable because the court addresses core appellate principles that frequently determine whether a party can obtain relief at all.

At a high level, the court reaffirmed that appellate review is constrained by the record developed below, the arguments actually presented to the district court, and the applicable standard of review.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution in IPR2026-00146, concluding that the petitioner met the threshold showing required under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a): a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. At the institution stage, that is the key question, and the Board found the petition sufficiently supported to move forward to a full trial on patentability.

Although an institution decision is not a final merits ruling, it is often a significant signal.

The Sixth Circuit’s April 28, 2026 disposition in Nonprecedential Opinion, No. 23-3645, appears to be just what its caption suggests: a nonprecedential ruling that resolves the parties’ dispute without creating binding circuit law. Even so, these unpublished decisions are often useful to practitioners because they show how the court is applying settled standards in day-to-day appeals—and what arguments are gaining traction with the panel.

Because the opinion is expressly nonprecedential, its immediate doctrinal impact is limited.

The Ninth Circuit’s April 20, 2026 decision in docket No. 23-2527 offers a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on procedure and standards of review as on the underlying merits. In an opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., the court addressed a civil appeal and clarified how federal appellate courts will evaluate the issues preserved below, the district court’s reasoning, and the appellant’s burden on review.

Although the full significance of the ruling will depend on the underlying claims and procedural posture, the opinion appears to fit squarely within a recurring Ninth Circuit theme: appellants must do more than identify alleged error.

In IPR2025-01188, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board terminated the proceeding after the parties settled following institution. The decision applies the familiar framework of 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, which govern settlement and termination of inter partes review, but it is still a useful reminder of how the Board handles cases once trial is already underway.

The core ruling is straightforward: when the parties jointly request termination after institution and the Board has not yet decided the merits, the PTAB generally will terminate the review as to those parties.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s April 13, 2026 scheduling order in IPR2026-00094 is procedural rather than merits-driven, but it still deserves attention from PTAB practitioners. Scheduling orders set the roadmap for an inter partes review, and in practice they can shape strategy just as much as a substantive ruling by fixing the timing for briefing, discovery, expert work, and the oral hearing.

At a high level, the Board’s order establishes the case schedule that will govern the parties through trial.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board terminated IPR2025-01302 after the parties settled following institution of trial, illustrating the Board’s usual approach when a dispute becomes moot before a final written decision. The order is a reminder that, even after institution, settlement can still bring an IPR to a close—though timing and procedural posture matter.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and the PTAB’s trial rules, an instituted inter partes review may be terminated upon joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has already decided the merits.

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.