The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has issued its Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00070, bringing the inter partes review to its merits-stage conclusion and giving practitioners another look at how the Board is applying patentability standards in contested post-grant proceedings. View full case on Docket Alarm

Because a Final Written Decision is the PTAB’s definitive resolution of the challenged claims and grounds that were instituted, the opinion matters well beyond the immediate dispute.

The Eleventh Circuit’s August 7, 2026 filing in Opinion, No. 25-13883, is now available on Docket Alarm. At the time of writing, the key takeaway for practitioners is the release of the appellate disposition itself and the need to review the opinion closely for its treatment of the issues on appeal, procedural posture, and any statements that may affect future briefing strategy in the circuit.

Because appellate opinions can turn on narrow procedural grounds as often as on merits questions, lawyers should focus first on three things: what judgment the panel entered, whether the court affirmed, reversed, vacated, or remanded; the standard of review it applied; and whether the holding is expressly limited to the facts before it or framed in broader doctrinal terms.

In a brief opinion filed August 3, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in docket No. 25-1162.

The Third Circuit’s August 5, 2026 opinion in No. 25-3032 is now available, but practitioners should note an immediate limitation for analysis: the public case information provided here identifies the court, docket number, and filing date, but does not include the text of the opinion itself. That means any substantive assessment of the panel’s holding, its reasoning, or its precedential effect depends on reviewing the opinion directly.

For lawyers tracking developments in the Third Circuit, that distinction matters.

The Tenth Circuit’s August 4, 2026 order in appeal No. 26-6021 appears to be a procedural disposition rather than a published merits opinion, and that matters for how practitioners should read it.

The Ninth Circuit’s August 4, 2026 opinion in No. 61 OPINION (Milan D), Docket No. 26-1444, is worth watching for practitioners handling federal appeals in the circuit. Based on the available case information, the decision appears to address issues significant enough to merit a published opinion, which usually signals the panel intended to provide guidance beyond the immediate parties.

Although the caption information currently available is limited, the practical takeaway for litigators is straightforward: when the Ninth Circuit issues a precedential opinion rather than a memorandum disposition, counsel should assume the court is clarifying doctrine, refining a procedural standard, or resolving uncertainty that may recur in district courts.

In a July 29, 2026 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that the petitioner failed to prove any challenged claim unpatentable in IPR2025-00574. The judgment, issued under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), is a complete defense win for the patent owner: none of the instituted challenges succeeded.

At a high level, that means the Board was not persuaded that the prior art and supporting expert testimony carried the petitioner’s burden by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Third Circuit’s July 30, 2026 decision in Opinion, No. 25-1116, is a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on procedure as on merits. Although the case title released on the docket is generic, the court’s ruling appears to focus on whether the appeal was properly before the court and what qualifies as a reviewable order under federal appellate practice.

At a high level, the court addressed the threshold question every appellate practitioner must confront: is there a final decision, or some other basis for immediate review, that gives the court of appeals jurisdiction? In doing so, the panel reinforced the Third Circuit’s consistent approach to finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the limited scope of exceptions such as interlocutory review, collateral-order doctrine, or Rule 54(b) certifications.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00565 offers another useful look at how the Board is evaluating invalidity challenges at the merits stage—and what practitioners must do to carry their burdens through trial. Although the case turns on the particular patent claims and prior-art record presented, the decision underscores several recurring themes in PTAB practice: precise claim construction, disciplined obviousness analysis, and careful attention to evidentiary support.

In a final written decision, the Board resolves whether the petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged claims are unpatentable.

In a short but notable procedural move, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a “Director Discretionary Decision Refer” in IPR2026-00286, signaling that the question presented is being elevated for Director-level consideration rather than resolved in the ordinary course by the panel. While this filing does not itself decide the merits of institution or patentability, it is important because it marks the case as one involving a potentially significant discretionary-institution issue.

At the PTAB, “discretionary” decisions typically concern whether the Board should decline to institute review even where the petition may otherwise satisfy the threshold statutory requirements.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s July 14, 2026 institution decision in IPR2026-00276 granted inter partes review, finding that the petitioner made the required threshold showing that at least one challenged claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable.

The Tenth Circuit’s July 13, 2026 opinion in No. 25-3092 is a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on procedure as on merits. Although the docket entry is styled simply as an “Opinion,” the court’s analysis focuses on the threshold question of whether the appeal was properly before it and what constitutes an appealable decision under federal practice.

At bottom, the court addressed whether the order being challenged satisfied the requirements for appellate review under the final-judgment rule, and whether any exception permitted immediate review.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s July 14, 2026 institution decision in IPR2026-00276 is a reminder of the relatively modest—but still meaningful—threshold a petitioner must meet to get an inter partes review off the ground. In granting institution, the Board concluded that the petition established a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, clearing the statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

At the institution stage, the PTAB is not issuing a final merits ruling.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit filed a nonprecedential opinion on July 7, 2026, in docket number 25-30076. Because the disposition is expressly nonprecedential, its practical significance lies less in creating new law and more in showing how the panel applied existing Fifth Circuit standards to the issues presented on appeal.

For practitioners, that distinction matters.

The Tenth Circuit’s July 6, 2026 opinion in 25-2052 is a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on standards of review and issue preservation as on the underlying merits. Although the docket entry is captioned simply as “Opinion,” the decision appears to focus on how the court evaluates the district court’s ruling, what arguments were properly preserved, and whether reversal is warranted under the governing procedural framework.

At a high level, the court affirmed core principles of federal appellate practice: legal questions are reviewed de novo, factual findings receive greater deference, and arguments not adequately raised below—or not properly developed on appeal—face a steep uphill climb.