A new post-grant review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could be one to watch for companies operating in the dental implant and broader medical-device space. On August 11, 2026, Straumann USA, LLC filed PGR2026-00070, asking the PTAB to review a recently issued patent.

A new post-grant review petition has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against Straumann USA, LLC, opening what could become a closely watched dispute for practitioners in the dental and medical-device patent space. The proceeding, PGR2026-00070, was filed on August 11, 2026. View full case on Docket Alarm

At this early stage, the PTAB docket identifies Straumann USA, LLC in the case caption, but practitioners will want to watch the filing record closely to confirm the specific patent number at issue, the named petitioner, and the precise claims challenged once the petition and related papers are available through the docket.

A new post-grant review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could be worth close attention for companies operating in the dental implant and medical device space. In PGR2026-00070, filed on August 11, 2026, the proceeding is captioned Straumann USA, LLC, signaling a challenge to a recently issued patent associated with one of the best-known names in dental technology.

At this stage, the docket entry identifies the matter by party name and PTAB number, but practitioners will want to watch for the petition and related filings to clarify the specific patent claims at issue, the identity of the petitioner, and the precise invalidity theories being advanced.

Meta Platforms, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00420 on August 7, 2026. The petition opens another closely watched PTAB contest involving a major technology company and underscores how frequently the Board remains central to high-stakes patent strategy.

At this early stage, the docket identifies the proceeding by petitioner name—Meta Platforms, Inc.—but the publicly available case caption information does not yet disclose the full patent details or the patent owner in the materials summarized here.

Zoom Communications, Inc. has launched a new challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing inter partes review petition IPR2026-00424 on July 24, 2026. For patent litigators and in-house IP teams, the case is worth watching both for what it may reveal about Zoom’s defensive patent strategy and for how the Board addresses the prior-art arguments once the petition and supporting papers are fully joined on the docket.

At this stage, the publicly available case caption identifies Zoom Communications, Inc. as the petitioner, but practitioners should review the underlying filings to confirm the patent owner, the specific U.S. patent number being challenged, and the claims at issue. Those details typically frame the entire dispute: whether the challenged patent covers core communications, conferencing, networking, or collaboration functionality, and whether the petition is aimed at neutralizing litigation exposure, licensing pressure, or competitive risk.

As with any IPR, the key battleground will be the grounds for review. PTAB petitions commonly rely on anticipation or obviousness theories under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, built from combinations of patents, printed publications, and expert declarations.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00416, was filed on July 9, 2026 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, naming McCormick Company, Inc. in the proceeding. For patent practitioners tracking food technology, consumer products, and brand-adjacent innovation disputes, this is the kind of PTAB filing worth watching from the outset.

At this early stage, the docket information publicly available from the case caption primarily identifies the proceeding by the patent owner name, McCormick Company, Inc.. As is typical in a newly filed IPR, the key issues will center on which McCormick patent is being challenged, who the petitioner is, and whether the petition presents prior art grounds strong enough to justify institution. Those details often shape not only the PTAB strategy, but also any parallel district court or licensing dynamics.

In general, an IPR petition asks the Board to review the validity of one or more patent claims based on prior art patents or printed publications, usually under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103. Once the petition and supporting papers are fully available, practitioners will want to examine the asserted references, claim constructions, any expert declaration support, and whether the petitioner is pressing a narrow claim-focused attack or attempting a broader invalidation campaign.

This case may be especially relevant for in-house IP counsel and outside litigators because PTAB challenges involving established commercial players like McCormick can reveal a great deal about how competitors or accused infringers are approaching ingredient, formulation, packaging, processing, or related patent portfolios. Even before institution, the filing can signal market pressure points, identify art that may be reused against related family members, and preview arguments that could spill into co-pending litigation or post-grant strategy.

Patent owners will also want to watch for familiar procedural themes: discretionary denial issues, real-party-in-interest disputes, the sufficiency of motivation-to-combine arguments, and whether the petition relies on teachings that map cleanly onto the challenged claims.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00376, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on June 18, 2026, naming Luxottica of America Inc. in the proceeding. While the publicly available docket caption confirms the PTAB filing and the involvement of Luxottica, this is the kind of early-stage matter patent practitioners will want to watch closely as the petition, patent-at-issue, and asserted invalidity theories come into sharper focus.

At this stage, the key takeaway is that a petitioner has asked the PTAB to institute trial on one or more claims of a patent connected to Luxottica.

Tesla Inc. is the named petitioner in a newly filed inter partes review, IPR2026-00382, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, adding another matter for practitioners tracking high-stakes validity disputes before the USPTO.

Pinterest, Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00366 on May 22, 2026. For patent litigators and in-house IP teams, the filing is worth watching not only for the substantive patentability issues it may raise, but also for what it could signal about Pinterest’s broader litigation and defensive patent strategy.

At this stage, the PTAB docket identifies the proceeding by petitioner name—Pinterest, Inc.—but practitioners should review the underlying petition papers on Docket Alarm for the specific patent number, challenged claims, and real-party-in-interest disclosures as they become available.

ATT Services, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00349 on May 5, 2026. At this early stage, the proceeding is notable less for any merits ruling and more for what it signals: another major operating company turning to the PTAB as part of a broader patent-defense playbook.

Based on the case caption, ATT Services, Inc. is the petitioner.

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.