Apple has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00437 on August 17, 2026. At this stage, the publicly available docket information is limited, but the filing itself is noteworthy for patent litigators and in-house IP teams tracking how major technology companies are using PTAB proceedings as part of broader enforcement and defense strategies.

The proceeding is captioned Apple Inc., indicating Apple is the petitioner seeking review of an issued patent.

Apple Inc. has launched a new challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing inter partes review petition IPR2026-00438 on August 17, 2026. At this early stage, the docket signals the opening of another high-stakes PTAB contest involving one of the most active technology companies in the patent arena. For practitioners tracking repeat PTAB filers, portfolio pressure campaigns, or parallel district court strategy, this is a proceeding worth watching.

The petitioner is Apple Inc.. Based on the currently available case information, Apple is seeking PTAB review of an issued patent, with the patent owner and the specific patent number expected to become clearer as the petition and related filings are further reflected on the docket.

A new petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, IPR2026-00413, was filed on August 14, 2026, and names Luxottica of America Inc. in the proceeding caption. For patent practitioners tracking activity in the eyewear, retail, consumer products, or branded technology spaces, this is a matter worth watching as the record develops.

At this early stage, the publicly available docket information identifies the proceeding title, filing date, and PTAB docket number, but key details that practitioners will want—most notably the patent number being challenged, the full party alignment between petitioner and patent owner, and the specific invalidity grounds asserted under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103—will likely become clearer as the petition and accompanying papers are added to the docket.

That said, the filing itself is significant.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has issued its Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00070, bringing the inter partes review to its merits-stage conclusion and giving practitioners another look at how the Board is applying patentability standards in contested post-grant proceedings. View full case on Docket Alarm

Because a Final Written Decision is the PTAB’s definitive resolution of the challenged claims and grounds that were instituted, the opinion matters well beyond the immediate dispute.

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.

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.

Meta Platforms, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2026-00420, filed on August 7, 2026.

Luxottica of America Inc. has filed a new inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening another matter for practitioners tracking how major consumer-brand companies use PTAB challenges as part of broader patent defense strategy. The petition, docketed as IPR2026-00412 and filed on August 7, 2026, is now pending before the Board.

At this early stage, the PTAB docket entry identifies Luxottica of America Inc. in the case caption, but the publicly available case summary does not yet provide the full set of details practitioners will want to monitor closely, including the challenged patent number, the named patent owner, and the specific prior-art grounds asserted in the petition.

In a July 29, 2026 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that the petitioner failed to prove any challenged claim unpatentable in IPR2025-00574. The judgment, issued under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), is a complete defense win for the patent owner: none of the instituted challenges succeeded.

At a high level, that means the Board was not persuaded that the prior art and supporting expert testimony carried the petitioner’s burden by a preponderance of the evidence.

Google LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2026-00429, opening another closely watched front in the company’s broader patent defense strategy. The proceeding, filed on July 29, 2026, is captioned simply Google LLC, but as with any PTAB matter, the key questions for patent practitioners will be which patent claims are under attack, what prior art combinations are being asserted, and whether the Board views the petition as a strong candidate for institution.

At this early stage, the docket signals the beginning of the challenge rather than its resolution.

Google LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00418 on July 30, 2026.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00408, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on July 28, 2026, under the caption Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. For patent practitioners tracking battery-sector disputes and PTAB filing trends, this is a proceeding worth watching as the record develops.

At this early stage, the publicly available docket information identifies the petitioner as Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd., but the initial case caption alone does not yet provide the full picture of the challenged patent, the patent owner, or the specific prior-art combinations being asserted.

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, IPR2026-00448, was filed on July 29, 2026, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and is captioned Dolby Laboratories, Inc. For patent litigators and in-house IP teams, the filing is worth watching not only because Dolby is a well-known player in audio and media technology, but also because PTAB challenges involving established portfolio owners often carry broader implications for parallel district court strategy, licensing leverage, and portfolio durability.

At this early stage, the public caption identifies the proceeding by the patent owner name, but the currently available case details do not yet specify in the docket summary which particular patent claims are being challenged, who the petitioner is, or the precise statutory grounds asserted.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00444 on July 24, 2026. As of the initial filing, the PTAB docket reflects the petitioner as Skechers, but practitioners will want to watch the case closely for the full petition, the identification of the challenged patent, the patent owner’s response, and any institution decision that clarifies the scope of the dispute.

At this early stage, the key public takeaway is that a major footwear company has turned to the PTAB to test the validity of a patent that is important enough to warrant administrative review.