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

ResMed Corp. has been named in a new inter partes review, IPR2026-00341, filed on June 12, 2026, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. While the newly filed docket entry identifies the proceeding by the company name, practitioners will want to watch closely as the petition develops and the challenged patent, claims at issue, and prior-art combinations come into sharper focus through the institution briefing.

At this stage, the publicly available case caption signals that a patent associated with ResMed’s portfolio is being challenged at the PTAB.

Tesla Inc. is the named petitioner in a newly filed inter partes review, IPR2026-00382, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, adding another matter for practitioners tracking high-stakes validity disputes before the USPTO.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00230 is a useful reminder of how decisively the Board will resolve validity disputes when the petitioner’s prior-art combinations, expert support, and claim construction positions align cleanly with the intrinsic record. In this June 11, 2026 decision, the PTAB concluded the inter partes review on the merits and determined the patentability of the challenged claims under the instituted grounds.

Although each final written decision turns on the particular technology and references at issue, the structure of the Board’s analysis here follows a familiar and important pattern for practitioners.

A new inter partes review has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against ResMed Corp., opening another front in the increasingly important fight over respiratory and sleep-therapy technology. The petition, docketed as IPR2026-00341 and filed June 12, 2026, places at issue the validity of a ResMed patent before the PTAB, where petitioners can seek cancellation of issued patent claims based on prior art patents and printed publications.

At this early stage, the publicly available docket information identifies the proceeding as Resmed Corp., but does not yet provide the full set of petition details typically most relevant to practitioners, including the patent number, the petitioner’s identity, and the specific prior-art combinations asserted.

Another PTAB proceeding has been filed against ResMed, with IPR2026-00341 entering the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on June 12, 2026. The petition places one of ResMed’s patents under inter partes review, opening a new front in what could become an important dispute for companies operating in the sleep-disorder and respiratory-device space.

At this stage, the publicly available docket identifies the proceeding by the title Resmed Corp., but practitioners will want to monitor the case record closely as the petition, mandatory notices, and related filings further clarify the specific patent claims at issue, the identity of all real parties in interest, and any parallel district court or ITC litigation that may shape the Board’s discretionary-review analysis.

As with any newly filed IPR, the key issues will center on which patent is being challenged, which claims are targeted, and what prior-art grounds are asserted. Typically, petitioners rely on anticipation and obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, supported by combinations of patents, printed publications, and expert declarations.

A new inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could draw close attention from patent owners, challengers, and counsel following the medical technology sector. In IPR2026-00341, filed June 12, 2026, the petition is styled Resmed Corp., signaling that ResMed is involved in a fresh PTAB dispute over the validity of an issued patent.

At this early stage, the public docket identifies the proceeding but may not yet fully reflect all underlying petition details, including the specific patent number, all real parties in interest, and the complete list of asserted prior-art grounds.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00391, was filed on June 5, 2026, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board naming Teladoc Health, Inc. in the proceeding. The filing places another spotlight on the digital health and telemedicine patent landscape, where platform functionality, remote care workflows, and software-driven healthcare delivery continue to generate high-stakes validity disputes.

At this early stage, the PTAB docket identifies the proceeding by title but may not yet reflect the full set of publicly available petition details practitioners typically watch for, including the specific patent number, the complete alignment of petitioner and patent owner, and the precise prior-art combinations asserted in the challenge.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00387, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on June 5, 2026, under the caption Optiver US LLC. At this early stage, the proceeding is notable less for a developed merits record and more for what it signals: another PTAB dispute involving a sophisticated market participant, with the potential to touch on commercially important technology and high-stakes parallel enforcement or licensing issues.

Based on the docket currently available, the proceeding names Optiver US LLC as the petitioner.

Another new inter partes review to watch at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board: IPR2026-00387, filed June 5, 2026, and captioned Optiver US LLC. At this early stage, the docket signals the start of a potentially important dispute for companies operating in technology-driven and latency-sensitive markets, but the petition itself will be the key document for practitioners looking to assess the full stakes of the case.

Based on the current docket entry, Optiver US LLC is the petitioner seeking review of an issued U.S. patent.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s June 2, 2026 public order in IPR2026-00252 is brief but still worth attention for PTAB practitioners: the Director denied discretionary review, leaving the underlying Board action in place. In practical terms, the decision reinforces how difficult it remains to obtain Director intervention absent a clear policy issue, legal error, or case-specific circumstance warranting extraordinary review.

Because this filing is a “Director Discretionary Decision: Deny,” the key takeaway is procedural rather than merits-driven.

Vivint LLC has filed a new petition for inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2026-00375, opened on June 1, 2026.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution in IPR2026-00189, finding that the petitioner made the required threshold showing that at least one challenged claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable. At the institution stage, that is the key question under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a): not whether the patent is ultimately invalid, but whether the petition presents a sufficiently strong merits case to justify full trial before the Board.

Although an institution decision is preliminary, it is often the first meaningful read on how the PTAB views the parties’ invalidity theories, prior art combinations, and claim construction disputes.

Amazon.com Services LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, docketed as IPR2026-00361 on May 26, 2026.

A new post-grant review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could be worth watching for companies and counsel operating in competitive consumer product and health-tech markets. In PGR2026-00051, titled Hyper Ice, Inc., a petitioner has asked the PTAB to review the validity of a recently issued patent associated with Hyper Ice, Inc. The petition was filed on May 26, 2026.

At this early stage, the PTAB docket signals the opening of a post-grant challenge, but practitioners should note that post-grant review itself already says a great deal about the patent at issue.