A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00434, was filed on July 23, 2026, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and is styled Aces Fuel Injection, Inc.. While the docket caption presently highlights the patent owner, the proceeding signals the start of what could become an important validity fight over fuel-injection technology and related patent claims.

At this early stage, practitioners should expect the key details to come into focus through the petition and mandatory notices: which specific patent is being challenged, the identity of the petitioner, and the precise claims and statutory grounds at issue.

In a short but notable procedural move, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a “Director Discretionary Decision Refer” in IPR2026-00286, signaling that the question presented is being elevated for Director-level consideration rather than resolved in the ordinary course by the panel. While this filing does not itself decide the merits of institution or patentability, it is important because it marks the case as one involving a potentially significant discretionary-institution issue.

At the PTAB, “discretionary” decisions typically concern whether the Board should decline to institute review even where the petition may otherwise satisfy the threshold statutory requirements.

Zoom Communications, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening docket IPR2026-00424 on July 24, 2026. While the petition is newly filed and the full merits record is still developing, the case is already worth watching for companies and counsel focused on communications technology, software patents, and parallel district court/PTAB strategy.

At this stage, the key takeaway is straightforward: Zoom is asking the PTAB to reconsider the validity of an issued patent through the IPR process, a forum that remains one of the most important tools for accused infringers facing high-stakes patent assertions.

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.

Foleon Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00403 on July 16, 2026. The proceeding puts at issue a patent that appears tied to digital publishing, online content creation, or related software-driven presentation technology—an area where PTAB challenges often turn on how broadly the patent owner framed routine web-based functionality and whether the prior art already taught the claimed implementation.

At this early stage, the publicly available docket entry identifies the petitioner as Foleon Inc., but practitioners will want to monitor the record closely for the petition itself, which should spell out the specific patent being challenged, the named patent owner, and the exact claims targeted for review.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s July 14, 2026 institution decision in IPR2026-00276 granted inter partes review, finding that the petitioner made the required threshold showing that at least one challenged claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable.

Google LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00421 on July 13, 2026.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s July 14, 2026 institution decision in IPR2026-00276 is a reminder of the relatively modest—but still meaningful—threshold a petitioner must meet to get an inter partes review off the ground. In granting institution, the Board concluded that the petition established a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, clearing the statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

At the institution stage, the PTAB is not issuing a final merits ruling.

Zoom Communications, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00411 on July 10, 2026. For patent litigators and in-house IP counsel, this is the kind of early-stage PTAB matter worth adding to a watchlist, especially because the petition may signal broader invalidity and defense strategy in parallel district court or licensing disputes.

At this stage, the public docket identifies the petitioner as Zoom Communications, Inc., but key details practitioners will want to monitor closely include the specific patent being challenged, the real parties in interest, and the prior-art grounds asserted in the petition. In a newly filed IPR, those details often frame the entire contest: which claims are targeted, whether the challenge relies on anticipation or obviousness theories under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and how the petitioner positions its expert declarations and claim constructions from the outset.

Once the petition materials are fully available, counsel should focus on several familiar but consequential PTAB issues.

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, IPR2026-00416, was filed on July 9, 2026, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board naming McCormick Company, Inc. as the patent owner.

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.

Zoom Communications, Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00407 on July 1, 2026. The proceeding is now on the radar for patent litigators and in-house IP teams tracking how major technology companies continue to use PTAB practice as part of broader litigation and risk-management strategy.

At this early stage, the docket identifies Zoom Communications, Inc. as the petitioner, but the public caption does not yet reveal the patent owner in the case title.

Twitch Interactive, Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00397 on June 29, 2026. As of the initial docket entry, the proceeding is identified under Twitch’s name, but practitioners will want to watch closely for the patent owner, challenged patent number, and petition details as the Board record develops. View full case on Docket Alarm.

Although the early case caption does not yet reveal the full set of underlying merits documents, an IPR filing by a platform like Twitch is immediately notable.