IPR and CBM Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in June 2016

Authors: Daniel F. Klodowski, Elliot C. CookDavid C. Seastrunk
Editor: Aaron L. Parker

In the 55 Final Written Decisions issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in June, the Board cancelled 572 (75.16%) of the instituted claims and declined to cancel 186 (24.44%) of the instituted claims.  Patent owners conceded 3 (0.39%) of the instituted claims through motions to amend or disclaimer.

PTAB-STATS-Claim-and-Case-Disposition-IPR-Claim-June-Stats

On a per-case basis, no instituted or substitute claims survived in 34 (61.82%) of the decisions, all instituted claims survived in 7 (12.73%) of the decisions, and a mixed outcome occurred in 14 (25.45%) of the decisions.  A mixed outcome occurs where at least one instituted or substitute claim remains patentable, and at least one is cancelled, in a Final Written Decision.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

IPR and CBM Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in May 2016

Authors: Daniel F. Klodowski, Elliot C. CookDavid C. Seastrunk
Editor: Aaron L. Parker

In the 35 Final Written Decisions issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in May, the Board cancelled 413 (74.28%) of the instituted claims and declined to cancel 94 (16.91%) of the instituted claims. Patent owners conceded 49 (8.81%) of the instituted claims through motions to amend or disclaimer.

PTAB-STATS-Claim-and-Case-Disposition-IPR-Claim-May-Stats

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Supreme Court Affirms Cuozzo : Agrees on BRI and Reviewability of Post-Grant Proceedings

Author: Ashley M. Winkler
Editor: Aaron J. Capron

Earlier this week, in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. __ (2016), the Supreme Court issued its first decision reviewing post-grant proceedings created by the America Invents Act (AIA) and affirmed the Federal Circuit in the two questions on appeal. Both issues challenged provisions of the AIA. First, the Court considered whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars judicial review of decisions to institute post-grant proceedings by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Second, the Court reviewed whether the rulemaking authority in 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(4) permits the USPTO to regulate application of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (BRI) during claim construction before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Reviewability of Post-Grant Proceedings

The Court held that “Section 314(d) bars . . . challenge[s] to the Patent Office’s decision to institute inter partes review.” Writing for the Court, Justice Breyer noted that the text of § 314(d) expressly states that institution decisions “shall be final and nonappealable.” The Court stated that interpreting this language to allow judicial review would “undercut one important congressional objective, namely, giving the Patent Office significant power to revisit and revise earlier patent grants.”

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , ,