Webinar | Women’s Nutrition: Nourishing Womanhood From Pregnancy To Menopause
11 September | 12 PM ET: Register Now
Webinar | Women’s Nutrition: Nourishing Womanhood From Pregnancy To Menopause
11 September | 12 PM ET: Register Now
| Petitioner | Petitions | Share of month |
|---|---|---|
| Apple Inc. | 9 | 22% |
| Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | 6 | 15% |
| Netskope, Inc. | 4 | 10% |
| Salesforce, Inc. | 4 | 10% |
| Samsung Display Co., Ltd. | 3 | 7% |
| Duke Manufacturing Co. | 3 | 7% |
| Sonova USA Inc. | 2 | 5% |
| Ten others (one each) | 10 | 24% |
Where the parallel cases sit
Texas runs through most of this month's data. Twenty-one of the thirty-one August filings name a Texas district-court venue, and all seven IPR institution decisions recorded one, with six of those listing a Texas district as the sole venue in the Western and Eastern Districts. These are the fast-docket courts that generate the early trial dates the Board weighs when it applies its discretionary framework. So the trial date next door is doing real work in your institution decision.
September filers cleared the gate more often than August’s did, but petition quality still mattered. If your parallel case sits in Texas, do not lean on timing alone. Six of the month’s eight denials sat beside a Texas case, and four of those six were merits denials. Have someone who did not write the petition read it cold.
Stacks did not spread the risk. Six disputes had more than one decision this month, and in four of them every petition got the same answer. A weak petition can still fail on its own words, even when Google, Apple or Samsung files it.
If you own a challenged patent, your preliminary response is due roughly three months after the Board accepts the filing. Start building it now.
One note on the data. We have complete technology classification for only three of the 41 new filings, and the patent owner is not captured for September filings, so there’s no full sector split this month and we’re reporting only what we can verify.
| Denial basis | Count | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Merits (petition weakness) | 4 | Google v. K.Mizra; Samsung Whirlpool; Apple v. IngenioSpec x2 |
| Discretionary (parallel case) | 1 | Palo Alto v. Qomplx (IPR2026-00371) |
| Discretionary (general, 314(a)) | 2 | Palo Alto v. Qomplx (IPR2026-00362); Apotex v. Agios |
| Procedural (nine-month window) | 1 | Biocon v. Regeneron |
| Instituted, merits proceed | 23 | Krisp x6, Accord x4, Merck x3, Samsung x2, Microsoft, Palo Alto, Google, Pinterest, Okta, Tricam, Wealth, Entegris |
| Outcome | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Petitioner, all claims down | 20 | 83% |
| Mixed, some claims down | 2 | 8% |
| Patent owner, all claims survive | 2 | 8% |
The two patents that survived
Add August and September and you get 42 final decisions. In 38 of them (90%) the petitioner took at least some claims, and in 30 (71%) it took all of them. Only four left whole. That belongs in your licensing model, your acquisition screen, and any damages position built on an asserted patent.
The offset is the gate in front of it. Across the same two months, 27 of 41 institution decisions went forward. This month, more of them did.
| Stage | August result | Who it favors |
|---|---|---|
| Institution | 26% denied, half on the merits | Mixed: wider gate, merits back |
| Merits (FWD) | 92% lose claims, 83% lose all | Petitioner |
| Post-grant channel | Q3 2026 (national, Unified) | September (GreyB tracker) |
|---|---|---|
| Ex parte reexam | 198 requests | Not in the September file |
| Inter partes review | 98 petitions | 37 petitions filed |
| Post-grant review | 8 petitions | 4 petitions filed |
National figures from Unified Patents, Q3 2026 Patent Dispute Report, published October 16, 2026. They cover three months, our tracker column covers September only, and the tracker is not a census, so compare direction, not volume
The numbers above set the frame, and these five are where they turn into something you can act on.
1. Don’t count on timing to carry a Texas case. 6 of 8 denials sat beside a Texas court case, and four of those six were merits denials. Build the timing record, and build the petition as if every line will be read.
2. Write for a cold reader. The one denial with written reasons lists four fixable flaws: claim construction, contradictory theories, no reason to combine, incorrect quotes. A reviewer who did not write the petition catches these before the Board does.
3. Look at what the art is. The The Apotex denial records that most of the cited references were already considered in prosecution. Intel’s two petitions, which rested on non-patent sources, both took every claim, and two of Accord’s four instituted petitions rested on non-patent sources alone.
4. Count the nine months. 6 of 7 PGR institution decisions went forward and all five PGR final decisions took every claim. But Biocon’s PGR died on the filing deadline, and August’s Viance did too. If the patent is new, price a PGR next to a reexam, and file early.
5. If you own the patent, plan for the year after institution. 22 of 24 September decisions took claims, and 22 of the 24 arrived 293 to 365 days after institution. Plan one response across the whole batch, and ask early whether any claim needs amending.
