A new inter partes review, IPR2027-00029, has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 30, 2026, in a proceeding titled Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd. At this early stage, the docket signals the opening of a potentially important dispute for companies operating in the 3D scanning, additive manufacturing, and digital modeling space.

Based on the currently available docket information, the proceeding centers on a challenge to a patent associated with or asserted against Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd. As with any newly filed IPR, the key questions for practitioners will be: which claims are targeted, what prior art has been raised, and whether the petition frames a broader strategy tied to district court litigation, ITC proceedings, or licensing negotiations.

The PTAB docket entry identifies the case and filing date, but practitioners should expect the most significant details to emerge through the petition and subsequent papers.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. has launched a new inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00517 on October 30, 2026.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00508 on September 22, 2026. As of the current docket caption available through Docket Alarm, the proceeding is identified under Samsung’s name, but practitioners will want to watch for the petition and mandatory notices to confirm the challenged patent, the named patent owner, and any real parties in interest as those filings become available.

At this early stage, the key development is the filing itself.

Amazon.com Services LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00471 on September 11, 2026.

Amazon.com Services LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00471 on September 11, 2026. At this early stage, the PTAB docket indicates that Amazon is the petitioner, but practitioners will want to monitor the record closely for the identity of the patent owner, the specific patent number being challenged, and the prior-art combinations asserted in the petition as those details become available on the docket.

An IPR filing alone can be strategically significant.

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.

A new inter partes review proceeding has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against Zoom Communications, Inc., opening another venue to watch for practitioners tracking software and communications-platform patent disputes. The petition, docketed as IPR2026-00461 and filed on August 24, 2026, places one of Zoom’s patents under PTAB scrutiny and may offer useful guidance on how challengers are framing invalidity arguments in the collaboration and conferencing space.

At this stage, the publicly available case caption identifies Zoom Communications, Inc. as the patent owner in the proceeding, but the docket entry should be monitored closely for the specific patent number, the identity of the petitioner, and the precise claims challenged as the record develops.

Apple has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00445 on August 25, 2026. At this stage, the public docket identifies the petitioner as Apple Inc., but practitioners will want to watch closely for the petition and accompanying exhibits to clarify the specific patent being challenged, the real party-in-interest disclosures, and the precise prior-art combinations Apple is advancing.

Even from the opening docket information, this proceeding is worth tracking.

Meta Platforms, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00459 on August 26, 2026. The petition adds to the steady stream of technology-company PTAB activity that in-house IP teams and patent litigators monitor closely for signals on validity strategy, parallel district court risk, and the Board’s treatment of software-focused claims.

At this stage, the docket reflects Meta as the petitioner, but practitioners should note that early PTAB filings often require close review to identify the full scope of the challenge: the specific patent owner, the patent number at issue, the challenged claims, and whether the petition is tied to co-pending litigation or broader portfolio pressure.

Meta Platforms, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2026-00426, filed on August 5, 2026.

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.

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00432 on July 20, 2026.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00401, was filed on July 22, 2026, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd., putting another battery-related patent dispute on the radar for companies operating in the energy storage and electronics supply chain. For patent professionals tracking PTAB activity in advanced manufacturing and battery technology, this case is one to watch closely.

At this early stage, the publicly available docket information identifies the proceeding by the patent owner’s name, Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd., but the petition materials will be the key source for confirming the specific patent number, the challenged claims, the identity of the petitioner, and the precise invalidity theories asserted.

A new inter partes review petition has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2026-00406, a proceeding captioned Duke Manufacturing Co. and opened on July 2, 2026. For patent practitioners tracking competitive challenges in the foodservice and commercial equipment space, this is a case worth watching as the record develops.

At this early stage, the PTAB docket indicates the filing of the IPR but may not yet reflect a fully developed public record identifying all details practitioners typically want immediately, including the specific patent claims challenged, the named petitioner and patent owner in full, and the precise prior-art combinations asserted in the petition.

Twitch Interactive, Inc. has launched a new proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing inter partes review petition IPR2026-00397 on June 29, 2026. For patent litigators and in-house IP teams, the case is worth watching both for what it may reveal about Twitch’s broader patent risk strategy and for how the Board approaches the prior art and validity issues raised in the petition.

At this early stage, the PTAB docket reflects the filing of the petition, but practitioners will want to monitor the record closely for the patent owner’s preliminary response, the Board’s institution decision, and any related district court litigation that may shape the parties’ positions.