Skechers U.S.A., Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening PTAB docket IPR2026-00343 on April 24, 2026. At this stage, the filing appears to be a newly instituted challenge record centered on a patent dispute involving Skechers, with practitioners likely watching for the patent owner’s preliminary response, the Board’s institution decision, and the substantive invalidity theories that will shape the case.

Based on the current docket entry, Skechers is the petitioner in the proceeding. The challenged patent and the full list of asserted prior-art grounds are typically identified in the petition and accompanying exhibits, which are key documents for anyone evaluating the strength of the challenge. In a PTAB case like this, the petition generally sets out why the claimed invention is allegedly unpatentable under anticipation and/or obviousness theories, most often under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, using patents, printed publications, and expert declarations to map the prior art to the challenged claims.

For patent owners and petitioners alike, the early phase of an IPR is often where the most important strategic issues emerge. Those include whether the petition presents a compelling, claim-by-claim unpatentability case; whether the Board sees any discretionary denial issues; how the petitioner frames the level of ordinary skill in the art; and whether there are parallel district court or ITC proceedings that could affect timing and estoppel considerations. If the challenged patent relates to footwear design, construction, comfort technology, or performance-related features—as the party name may suggest—this proceeding could also offer useful guidance for consumer-product companies facing patent assertions in crowded technical and commercial fields.

IP counsel should follow this case for several reasons. First, PTAB petitions filed by major consumer brands often preview broader litigation strategy, including how defendants are using administrative review to pressure settlement or narrow asserted claims. Second, institution decisions in product-focused patent disputes can reveal how the Board is handling prior art combinations in mature industries where innovation is often incremental. Third, if expert declarations or patent owner responses raise claim construction disputes, the docket may become a practical resource for future briefing in similar cases.

As the record develops, this proceeding will be worth monitoring for the identity of the patent owner, the exact patent claims under attack, and the prior-art references Skechers is relying on to seek cancellation. Those details will determine whether IPR2026-00343 becomes a routine validity fight or a more consequential PTAB battle with implications beyond the parties.

View full case on Docket Alarm