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.

The Third Circuit’s October 5, 2026 filing in Opinion, No. 25-3170, is now available, but before drawing substantive conclusions, practitioners should confirm the slip opinion’s text and holding directly from the docket.

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.

A new post-grant review, PGR2026-00074, has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against MightySlab Distribution Company LLC, putting one of the company’s patents directly in the PTAB spotlight. The petition was filed on September 9, 2026. For patent litigators, prosecutors, and in-house IP counsel, this is the kind of early-stage PTAB matter worth monitoring closely as the record develops.

At this stage, the publicly available docket information identifies the proceeding by the patent owner’s name, but the key practical takeaway is clear: a petitioner is seeking post-grant review of a recently issued patent owned by MightySlab Distribution Company LLC.

The Third Circuit’s September 3, 2026 opinion in No. 25-1233 is now on the radar for appellate watchers, though practitioners should note an important limitation at the outset: based on the case materials currently reflected in the docket entry, the publicly available information does not yet provide enough detail to assess the underlying claims, the panel’s holding, or whether the decision breaks new doctrinal ground.

That said, the opinion is still worth tracking closely.

A new post-grant review, PGR2026-00072, has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board involving Anagen LLC. The petition was filed on September 1, 2026, opening what could become an important proceeding for patent owners, challengers, and counsel tracking how recently issued patents are tested at the PTAB.

At this stage, the docket information publicly identifies the matter by the title Anagen LLC, but practitioners should note that early PTAB dockets do not always immediately reveal the full contours of the dispute from the caption alone.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit filed a nonprecedential opinion in No. 25-7002 on August 31, 2026. Because the disposition is expressly nonprecedential, its practical importance lies less in creating binding circuit law and more in how it illustrates the court’s application of settled appellate principles to the facts of the case.

For practitioners, the key takeaway is procedural as much as substantive: unpublished or nonprecedential Fourth Circuit opinions can still offer valuable guidance on how the panel approaches preservation, standards of review, and the sufficiency of the record on appeal.

The Eleventh Circuit’s August 27, 2026 opinion in No. 25-12314 is now available, and it is a reminder of how closely practitioners need to track appellate rulings for both doctrinal developments and procedural guidance. Because the docket entry provided here identifies the filing simply as “Opinion,” the most immediate takeaway for litigators is practical: review the full decision promptly to assess whether it affects preservation strategy, standards of review, or substantive claims in pending matters.

At a high level, Eleventh Circuit opinions often matter for three reasons.

The Tenth Circuit’s August 25, 2026 filing in Opinion, No. 25-6120, is now available on Docket Alarm: View full case on Docket Alarm.

At the moment, the public case details provided here identify the court, docket number, and filing date, but do not include the text of the opinion itself.

Google LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, docketed as IPR2026-00466 on August 28, 2026.

Apple Inc. has launched a new challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing inter partes review petition IPR2026-00438 on August 17, 2026. At this early stage, the docket signals the opening of another high-stakes PTAB contest involving one of the most active technology companies in the patent arena. For practitioners tracking repeat PTAB filers, portfolio pressure campaigns, or parallel district court strategy, this is a proceeding worth watching.

The petitioner is Apple Inc.. Based on the currently available case information, Apple is seeking PTAB review of an issued patent, with the patent owner and the specific patent number expected to become clearer as the petition and related filings are further reflected on the docket.

A new petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, IPR2026-00413, was filed on August 14, 2026, and names Luxottica of America Inc. in the proceeding caption. For patent practitioners tracking activity in the eyewear, retail, consumer products, or branded technology spaces, this is a matter worth watching as the record develops.

At this early stage, the publicly available docket information identifies the proceeding title, filing date, and PTAB docket number, but key details that practitioners will want—most notably the patent number being challenged, the full party alignment between petitioner and patent owner, and the specific invalidity grounds asserted under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103—will likely become clearer as the petition and accompanying papers are added to the docket.

That said, the filing itself is significant.

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.

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.