This patent news roundup covers 5 developments reported in October 2026 that matter to litigation, licensing and search teams. The items are:
- new US dispute figures for the third quarter of 2026;
- a split between the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on the same patent;
- the UK response on standard essential patents (SEPs);
- a sign-in rule for a free USPTO search tool;
- a cross-border injunction over subcutaneous Keytruda.
Patent news roundup: Q3 2026 dispute figures
Unified Patents published its Q3 2026 Patent Dispute Report on 16 October 2026. District court filings rose, while petitions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) stayed far below last year.
| Measure (Q3 2026) | Figure | Change |
|---|---|---|
| US district court cases | 1,166 | Up 15.6% on Q2 |
| Cases filed by non-practising entities | 650 | 55.7% of the total |
| PTAB petitions (IPR and PGR) | 106 | Down 70.1% on Q3 2025 |
| Ex parte reexamination requests | 198 | Down from a record 331 in Q2 |
| New UPC actions | 184 | Down from 242 in Q3 2025 |
The Eastern District of Texas took 400 of the district court cases. The inter partes review (IPR) institution rate rose to 57.3%, although the report notes the small number of decisions behind it.
Reexamination still made up 65.1% of post-grant filings. A request rests on prior patents and printed publications (35 U.S.C. 302). The quality of the patent invalidity search behind it therefore decides whether a substantial new question of patentability can be shown.
EPO revokes a DivX patent the UPC upheld against Netflix
On 15 September 2026, the Munich local division of the UPC upheld DivX’s EP 4 213 033, a patent on progressive playback of streamed media. It found that Netflix’s streaming software indirectly infringes claim 1 and granted an injunction covering 18 UPC member states. Netflix has appealed.
JUVE Patent reported on 20 October 2026 that an EPO opposition division has revoked the same patent. DivX can appeal to the Boards of Appeal.
The two forums heard separate challenges and reached opposite results on the same patent. For a defendant, the case shows the value of an opposition filed within 9 months of the mention of grant (Article 99 EPC). It also shows why the prior art used in both forums is best kept consistent. Patent litigation support often covers both tracks at once.
UK drops the SEP rate determination track
The UK government published its response to the SEP consultation on 13 October 2026. It will not create a Rate Determination Track in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. Instead, it plans to explore:
- work with the judiciary on an early neutral evaluation process within existing court proceedings;
- a consultation on a voluntary, non-binding FRAND opinion service from the Intellectual Property Office (IPO);
- non-binding FRAND licensing guidelines;
- no IPO-run essentiality checking service for now.
For now, essentiality remains largely a matter for the parties and the courts. Essentiality evidence will still come from SEP claim charts that map claims to the standard, as described in claim charts explained.
USPTO Patent Public Search will require sign-in
The USPTO states that, beginning 7 November 2026, Patent Public Search will require users to sign in with a USPTO account. Users without an account are encouraged to create one in advance.
The change affects anyone who runs US full-text searches in the free tool, including inventors and in-house teams. The sources and methods behind a professional search are set out in the prior art search guide.
Dutch court blocks subcutaneous Keytruda in 8 countries
In a ruling announced by Halozyme on 7 October 2026, the District Court of The Hague found that MSD’s subcutaneous Keytruda infringes Halozyme’s EP 2 797 622 and upheld the patent. The injunction covers the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland. MSD says it considers the patent invalid, will evaluate next steps and expects to prevail in the courts.
The dispute concerns a delivery technology, not the antibody itself. A freedom to operate search for a new formulation therefore covers excipients, enzymes and delivery methods as well as the active ingredient.
Search support after this week’s patent news
We run invalidity, freedom to operate and prior art searches for law firms and IP teams. Contact us through our contact page.
This guide is general information and is not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an ex parte reexamination?
An ex parte reexamination is a USPTO procedure in which an examiner reconsiders the claims of a granted US patent. Any person can request it, based on prior patents or printed publications, and the Office orders it only if the request raises a substantial new question of patentability.
Can the EPO and the UPC reach different results on the same patent?
Yes. An EPO opposition and a UPC revocation counterclaim are separate proceedings with their own judges, evidence and timetables. Neither forum is bound by the other’s reasoning, but a final EPO revocation removes the patent in all designated states, including UPC states.
What is an IPR institution rate?
The IPR institution rate is the share of inter partes review petitions that the PTAB decides to take to a full trial. A petition is instituted only if it shows a reasonable likelihood that at least 1 challenged claim is unpatentable over prior patents or printed publications.
What is a standard essential patent?
A standard essential patent is a patent with at least 1 claim that cannot be avoided when a product implements a technical standard, such as 4G or 5G. Holders that declare such patents to a standards body usually commit to licensing them on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
Why do formulation patents matter in pharma FTO?
Formulation patents cover a drug’s composition and delivery, such as its excipients, dose form or delivery enzyme. They often expire later than the compound patent, so a new product form can face blocking patents even when the active ingredient is free to use.