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.

A new post-grant review, PGR2026-00074, has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against MightySlab Distribution Company LLC, putting one of the company’s patents directly in the PTAB spotlight. The petition was filed on September 9, 2026. For patent litigators, prosecutors, and in-house IP counsel, this is the kind of early-stage PTAB matter worth monitoring closely as the record develops.

At this stage, the publicly available docket information identifies the proceeding by the patent owner’s name, but the key practical takeaway is clear: a petitioner is seeking post-grant review of a recently issued patent owned by MightySlab Distribution Company LLC.

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.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s September 9, 2026 scheduling order in PGR2026-00033 does not resolve the merits of the post-grant review, but it is still an important procedural ruling for parties practicing before the Board. As is often the case in AIA trials, the order establishes the framework that will control the pace of the case, the parties’ briefing obligations, and the practical management of the dispute going forward.

At a high level, the Board issued a standard scheduling order setting deadlines for the major stages of the proceeding, including patent owner responses, petitioner replies, motions practice, and oral hearing-related events.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s latest entry in IPR2026-00273 is a scheduling order, not a merits decision—but practitioners should not dismiss it as routine. In PTAB practice, the scheduling order is often the document that quietly defines the real shape of the case: deadlines, sequencing, and the procedural framework that will govern how the parties present their evidence and arguments.

Here, the Board issued an order setting the schedule for the proceeding.

Zoom Communications, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00470 on September 2, 2026. The proceeding adds another potentially significant dispute to the PTAB docket and is one that patent litigators, prosecution counsel, and in-house IP teams may want to track closely.

At this stage, the publicly available docket information identifies Zoom Communications, Inc. as the petitioner, but the initial case caption does not, by itself, reveal the patent owner or the patent number being challenged.

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, IPR2026-00469, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on September 3, 2026, opening what could become an important dispute for patent owners, petitioners, and portfolio managers watching PTAB filing trends. The proceeding is captioned EverWave Inc., indicating that EverWave is central to the challenged patent dispute.

At this early stage, the docket entry signals the start of a PTAB challenge but does not, from the case caption alone, reveal the full set of party details, the specific patent number at issue, or the precise statutory grounds asserted in the petition.

Google LLC has filed a new inter partes review, IPR2026-00440, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on August 27, 2026, opening another front in what may become a closely watched patent dispute. At this stage, the docket identifies Google as the petitioner, but practitioners should note that early PTAB filings sometimes provide only limited public-facing party details until the petition and related papers are fully available through the record.

What we know now is that this proceeding is aimed at challenging the validity of an issued patent through the PTAB’s administrative review process.

Google LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, docketed as IPR2026-00466 on August 28, 2026.

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.