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.

A new post-grant review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is worth watching for practitioners tracking early-life patent challenges and the evolving use of PTAB proceedings against recently issued patents. In PGR2026-00064, titled ShoreShade LLC, the petition was filed on July 1, 2026. The proceeding is now on the radar for patent owners, petitioners, and IP counsel evaluating how aggressively to use post-grant review in high-stakes disputes.

At this stage, the docket caption identifies ShoreShade LLC as the patent owner in the PTAB proceeding.

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.

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.

A new post-grant review, PGR2026-00062, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on June 25, 2026, putting an America Ugreen Limited patent directly in the PTAB spotlight.

A new inter partes review filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could be one to watch for companies operating at the intersection of life sciences, nutraceuticals, and consumer health. In IPR2026-00400, the proceeding is captioned Thorne Research, Inc. and was filed on June 22, 2026.

At this early stage, the PTAB docket signals that a patent challenge involving Thorne Research is underway, but practitioners should note that key details—including the specific patent claims at issue, the identity of the petitioner and patent owner as reflected in the styled papers, and the precise invalidity combinations asserted—may develop as the record fills out.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00400, was filed on June 22, 2026, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against Thorne Research, Inc. The proceeding is one to watch for companies operating at the intersection of dietary supplements, formulations, and health-focused consumer products, where patent value often turns on how broadly claims are drafted and how well they withstand validity attacks based on published prior art.

At this stage, the publicly available docket information identifies Thorne Research, Inc. as the patent owner, but practitioners should review the petition and related filings to confirm the specific challenged patent, the real parties in interest, and the exact claims at issue as the record develops.

A new post-grant review, PGR2026-00062, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on June 25, 2026, in a matter captioned America Ugreen Limited. While the publicly available docket caption immediately identifies Ugreen as a party, patent professionals will want to watch for the petition, mandatory notices, and patent owner filings to clarify the full party alignment, the challenged claims, and the commercial context behind the dispute.

At this stage, the key takeaway is procedural as much as substantive: a post-grant review is only available for patents subject to the AIA’s first-inventor-to-file regime and allows challengers to press a broader range of invalidity theories than inter partes review.

Tesla has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00380 on June 18, 2026. At this early stage, the public docket identifies the proceeding under the caption Tesla Inc., but key details that practitioners will want to monitor—including the patent owner, the specific patent number, and the prior-art combinations asserted—may become clearer as the petition and related papers are added to the record.

Even with a limited docket snapshot, the filing itself is notable.

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. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00380 on June 18, 2026.