Apple has filed a new inter partes review, IPR2026-00340, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on April 24, 2026, opening another closely watched front in the company’s patent dispute strategy. The proceeding is captioned Apple Inc., and, as with many newly filed PTAB matters, practitioners will be watching the petition and any forthcoming preliminary response to see how the issues are framed before the Board decides whether to institute review.

At this early stage, the public docket identifies Apple as the petitioner but may not yet provide the full set of details practitioners typically want immediately, including the patent owner’s identity, the patent number being challenged, and the precise prior-art grounds asserted.

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.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00337 on April 15, 2026. The proceeding places another potentially significant patent dispute on the PTAB’s docket and gives patent practitioners an early look at what may become an important validity fight involving Samsung as petitioner.

At this stage, the publicly available case caption identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the petitioner, but practitioners should watch the docket closely for the patent owner’s formal identification, the challenged patent number, and the specific claims at issue as those details become more fully reflected in the record.

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.

A newly filed opposition in IPR2025-00677 puts a familiar but strategically important PTAB issue front and center: whether a patent owner’s proposed substitute claims can survive scrutiny when offered through a contingent motion to amend. In its April 7, 2026 filing, the petitioner asks the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny the patent owner’s amendment request, arguing that the revised claims still do not satisfy the governing patentability and procedural standards.

A contingent motion to amend is exactly what it sounds like: the patent owner proposes substitute claims only if the Board finds the original claims unpatentable.

Toyota Motor Corporation has filed a new inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening what could become a closely watched dispute for companies managing automotive and mobility-related patent portfolios. The petition, docketed as IPR2026-00333 and filed on April 7, 2026, signals Toyota’s effort to challenge the validity of an issued U.S. patent through the PTAB’s administrative review process.

At this early stage, the case caption identifies Toyota Motor Corporation as the petitioner, but the publicly available docket entry does not yet provide the full details practitioners will want most, including the patent number at issue, the named patent owner, and the specific prior-art combinations and statutory grounds asserted in the petition.

Toyota Motor Corporation has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00333 on April 7, 2026. At this early stage, the docket identifies Toyota as the petitioner, but practitioners will want to monitor the record closely as the challenged patent, real parties in interest, and the full invalidity theories are fleshed out through the petition and any preliminary response.

An IPR filing is often an early signal of a broader enforcement fight or a parallel district court campaign, making proceedings like this one worth following even before institution.

Microsoft Corporation has filed a new inter partes review petition against QOMPLX LLC at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening a fresh front in what could become an important dispute over patent validity and competitive positioning. The case, Microsoft Corporation v. Qomplx LLC, was filed on April 7, 2026, and is docketed as IPR2026-00325.

At this stage, the PTAB docket reflects the filing of the petition, with Microsoft as petitioner and QOMPLX as patent owner.

Apple Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00332 on April 3, 2026. At this stage, the public docket identifies Apple as the petitioner, but practitioners should note that early PTAB dockets often reveal only limited information until the petition, exhibits, and mandatory notices are fully available.

Based on the current case listing, the key immediate takeaway is that Apple is asking the Board to reconsider the validity of at least one issued patent through the PTAB’s trial system.

Toyota Motor Corporation has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening proceeding IPR2026-00333 on April 7, 2026. The filing places at issue the validity of a patent that, while not identified in the docket caption itself, is now the subject of a formal PTAB challenge by one of the world’s largest automotive companies. For patent owners and accused infringers alike, that alone makes this proceeding worth watching closely.

At this stage, the key public-facing details are the petitioner, the forum, and the timing.

Okta, Inc. has launched a new Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding,IPR2026-00327, filed on April 6, 2026. The petition places another technology-focused patent dispute before the PTAB and is one that in-house IP teams, patent litigators, and counsel following the identity and access management space will want to watch closely.

At this early stage, the publicly available docket identifiesOkta, Inc.as the petitioner in an inter partes review, but the full petition and supporting papers will be the key source for confirming thespecific patent being challenged, thepatent owner, and the exactclaims at issue. As is typical in PTAB practice, the petition is expected to lay out the challenged claims, identify the real parties in interest, and present the unpatentability theories based on prior art patents and printed publications.

Inter partes review is a targeted vehicle for attacking issued patent claims under35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. In practical terms, that means the grounds for review in this case will likely turn on whether Okta contends the challenged claims areanticipatedby a single reference orobviousin view of combinations of prior art.