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. As the record develops, key documents will clarify the specific patent claims under challenge, the petitioner, the real parties in interest, and the precise statutory grounds asserted. That makes this the kind of case worth monitoring from the outset.
Because this is a post-grant review, the challenged patent is necessarily one that falls within the PGR framework, which allows broader attacks than inter partes review. Unlike IPR, a PGR petition can raise not only anticipation and obviousness issues under Sections 102 and 103, but also patent-eligibility, written description, enablement, and indefiniteness challenges under Sections 101 and 112. For patent owners, that means a newly issued patent can face a comprehensive validity attack very early in its life. For petitioners, it offers a powerful chance to shape the dispute before district court litigation fully matures.
The most important issues to watch in this proceeding will be: whether the Board institutes review on all asserted grounds or narrows the petition; how the petitioner frames any Section 101 or Section 112 arguments if included; and how Anagen LLC responds on claim construction, priority, and the sufficiency of the petition’s evidentiary support. PTAB institution decisions in PGRs often provide useful guidance on how the Board is handling broad invalidity theories in the wake of evolving Federal Circuit precedent.
Patent practitioners and in-house IP counsel should follow this case for several reasons. First, PGR filings remain comparatively less common than IPRs, so each new petition can offer meaningful insight into strategy. Second, if the patent involves commercially significant technology, the proceeding may become a roadmap for future challenges to similarly situated patents. Third, the case may provide practical lessons on drafting and defending claims against the full spectrum of PGR attacks.
For ongoing filings, party details, and upcoming PTAB activity, View full case on Docket Alarm.