Intuit Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2027-00017, filed on October 19, 2026. At this early stage, the docket identifies the proceeding under Intuit’s name, but practitioners will want to watch closely for the petition, mandatory notices, and any subsequent filings that clarify the patent owner, the challenged patent number, and the specific prior-art combinations at issue.

As of the current docket entry, the case is notable less for a fully developed merits record and more for what it signals: another sophisticated technology company turning to the PTAB as part of its patent defense strategy.

A newly filed inter partes review, IPR2027-00013, puts Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. back before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a proceeding that patent litigators and in-house IP teams will want to watch closely. The petition was filed on October 14, 2026, and, at least from the current docket caption, the proceeding is styled under Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.

At this early stage, the publicly available case details identify the forum, docket number, and filing date, but do not yet provide the full set of details practitioners typically look for at filing—most importantly, the specific patent number being challenged, the identity of the petitioner if different from the captioned party, and the asserted prior-art grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.

A new inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, IPR2027-00003, was filed on October 2, 2026, naming Shenzhen Lanhe Technologies Co., Ltd in the case caption. Although the currently available docket entry provides only limited public-facing detail, the filing itself is worth watching for patent litigators, portfolio managers, and in-house IP counsel tracking PTAB activity involving overseas technology companies and potentially high-volume enforcement targets.

At this stage, the caption indicates that the challenged patent is associated with Shenzhen Lanhe Technologies Co., Ltd., but practitioners should note that additional filings will be needed to confirm the specific patent number, the identity of the petitioner, and the complete set of asserted grounds.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s October 1, 2026 order in IPR2025-01250 grants the Patent Owner’s motions to seal, reinforcing a familiar but important PTAB principle: while Board proceedings are presumptively public, targeted protection remains available for genuinely confidential business information.

Although this order is procedural rather than merits-based, it matters because sealing disputes often shape how parties present technical and commercial evidence in inter partes review.

Luxottica of America Inc. has filed a new inter partes review, IPR2026-00512, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on September 29, 2026. At this early stage, the filing itself is the key development: it signals that Luxottica is turning to the PTAB to challenge the validity of an asserted patent rather than limiting the fight to district court litigation or licensing negotiations.

Based on the docket caption, Luxottica of America Inc. is the petitioner.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s October 1, 2026 order in IPR2025-01254 is a useful reminder that while PTAB proceedings are presumptively public, the Board will protect genuinely confidential business information when the movant makes a sufficient showing. In this order, the Board granted the Patent Owner’s motions to seal, allowing certain materials to remain non-public under the applicable protective framework.

Although the order appears procedural rather than merits-driven, it matters because sealing disputes frequently shape how parties present technical and commercial evidence in inter partes review.

The Federal Circuit entered an order dismissing the appeal arising from IPR2024-01403, a procedural outcome that may look modest on its face but still carries practical significance for patent litigators tracking PTAB matters and appellate deadlines. The docket entry indicates a Federal Circuit order dismissing the appeal, rather than a merits decision addressing patentability, claim construction, or institution-related issues.

Because this appears to be an order of dismissal rather than a precedential opinion, the key takeaway is procedural: the appellate process ended without a substantive ruling from the Federal Circuit on the underlying PTAB dispute.

Salesforce, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00476 on September 24, 2026. The petition opens another closely watched PTAB dispute for technology and software-focused patent practitioners, particularly those tracking how enterprise software companies are using the Board to challenge issued patents that may affect core platform, customer relationship management, or cloud-based business tools.

At this stage, the public docket identifies the proceeding under the title Salesforce, Inc., but practitioners will want to monitor the record for the challenged patent number, the patent owner’s identity, and the specific prior-art combinations asserted in the petition as those details become available through the docket.

Salesforce, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00477 on September 24, 2026. Although the public docket caption identifies the petitioner as Salesforce, the filing is notable for what it may reveal about the company’s broader patent defense strategy and the kinds of prior-art arguments now being tested at the PTAB.

At this stage, the basic procedural posture is clear: Salesforce is asking the Board to review the validity of an issued U.S. patent through the IPR process, which allows petitioners to challenge patent claims on anticipation and obviousness grounds based on patents and printed publications.

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.

Apple Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00500 on September 19, 2026. For patent litigators and in-house IP teams, the case is worth watching not only because of the petitioner’s profile, but also because early PTAB filings often signal parallel district court strategy, licensing pressure points, or a broader campaign against a patent family.

At this stage, the publicly available case caption identifies Apple Inc. as the petitioner, but the initial docket details provided here do not specify the patent owner or the patent number being challenged.

Apple Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00491 on September 18, 2026. As with many newly filed PTAB matters, the docket is worth watching from the outset because the petition marks the beginning of a potentially important validity fight that could affect parallel district court litigation, licensing leverage, and broader portfolio strategy.

At this early stage, the available docket information identifies Apple Inc. as the petitioner, but the publicly summarized case caption does not yet reveal all of the key underlying details practitioners will want to monitor closely—most notably, the specific patent owner, the patent number being challenged, and the precise invalidity grounds asserted in the petition.

Netskope, Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening PTAB docket IPR2026-00474 on September 15, 2026. For patent litigators and in-house IP teams, this is the kind of proceeding worth monitoring early: even at the filing stage, an IPR can signal a broader enforcement dispute, a defensive campaign against a competitor’s portfolio, or a strategic effort to reshape parallel district court litigation.

At this stage, the publicly available docket information identifies Netskope, Inc. as the petitioner, but the full petition and accompanying papers will be critical to pin down the complete picture — including the specific patent being challenged, the patent owner, and the precise prior-art grounds asserted.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s September 10, 2026 order in IPR2025-01593 is not a merits ruling, but it is still worth practitioners’ attention. The Board entered a modified scheduling order, adjusting the case calendar that will govern the parties’ deadlines through the remainder of the inter partes review. While these orders can look routine, they often reveal how the PTAB is balancing efficiency, fairness, and the practical demands of contested patent proceedings.

At bottom, the Board decided that the existing schedule should be changed.

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.