United States: PTAB Says 58% Of Patents Survive Post-grant Proceedings Unchanged

Last Updated: October 26 2017
Article by Julianne M. Hartzell

On October 24, 2017, the PTAB held its inaugural "Chat with the Chief" webinar. The main topic of the webinar was to discuss multiple petitions filed against the same patent. The PTAB sought to address concerns that have been raised by patent owners that challengers just keep filing petitions until something sticks, and that petitioners presenting multiple petitions unfairly gain an advantage by obtaining information from the Patent Owner's response to the first petition or the Board's Institution Decision that help provide a roadmap for the subsequent petition. The PTAB presents results from an internal study that appears intended to alleviate these concerns.

As reported in the webinar by Chief Judge David Ruschke and Lead Judge William Saindon, the PTAB conducted an internal comprehensive review of IPR, PGR, and CBM petitions filed on or before June 30, 2017, to see what it could learn about these multiple petitions. The study included 7168 petitions involving 4376 patents. The slides used during the webinar are available at the Board's website. This is an ongoing study and the PTAB encourages submission of additional questions for consideration.

One purpose of the study was to calculate some standard PTAB statistics, including institution rate and claim survival rate on a per patent basis. Previous PTAB data were primarily calculated on a per petition basis. The most striking result reported was that 58% of patents survive post-grant proceedings unchanged, meaning that all challenges to patent claims raised in the proceeding failed. For 7% of patents, some challenged claims were found unpatentable and for 29% of patents all challenged claims were found unpatentable. The Chief Judge definitely seemed to feel that this is an important data point in the Board's constant battle to overcome its initial reputation as a Patent Death Panel.

The PTAB study considered eight questions, each of which are considered below with the study's conclusions.

Question 1: Do IPRs represent a significant proportion of US patent litigation landscape?

The study concluded based upon data from Lex Machina's 2017 PTAB report that approximately 85% of IPRs in Fiscal 2017 have a co-pending district court case. However, less than one fifth of district court cases involve patents that are challenged in an IPR. So, while IPRs are primarily used in connection with district court cases, there are still a large percentage of district court cases where IPRs do not play a role. The Board presented this data as a Venn diagram shown below:

Question 2: How many petitioners challenge patents?

The study concluded that the vast majority of patents are challenged only by a single petitioner (84.8%). Most of these petitioners were defendants in co-pending litigation proceedings.

Question 3: How many petitions are filed against each patent?

Again, the PTAB study found that the majority of patents face only a single petition (67%). Another 20% of patents are challenged in two petitions, but the number of petitions filed per patent drop off quickly from that point.

Question 4: Do petitioners often "wait and see" what the Patent Owner says in its Preliminary response or the Board says in a decision on institution?

The PTAB then looked at when petitions are filed. For 41% of the petitions in this data set, only one petition was filed. For those facing multiple petitions, 38% of those petitions were filed at or near the same day. In 5% of the petitions, a second petition was filed after the patent owner's preliminary response, but before the Board's decision on institution. Finally, in 16% of the petitions, a second petition was filed after the Board's decision on institution. This last set, the 16%, provide the most concern to the Board so that category was considered more thoroughly in questions 5 and 6.

Question 5: Who are the petitioners filing petitions after the Board issues a decision on institution?

To determine who is filing another petition after a decision on institution, judges reviewed the case files for each instance where a subsequent petition was filed after the decision on institution. Looking at the 16% of cases where this happened, 9-10% of those cases resulted from some change in litigation (such as an amended complaint adding new claims) or a different petitioner seeking joinder (such a late-added defendant). The PTAB explained that it believes multiples petitions resulting from change in litigation or a motion for joinder may not be problematic. The remaining 6-7% of cases did not involve a change in litigation. The PTAB explained that it is generally more concerned that these cases may allow for road-mapping. As outlined in the newly-precedential decision General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (IPRs 2016-01357, 2016-01358, 2016-01359, 2016-01360, 2016-01361), the Board has identified a number of factors to be considered when deciding whether to institute on multiple petitions that address these concerns. I will discuss those factors further below.

Question 6: How often have petitioners been able to use the Board's institution decision to inform another petition?

To consider this question, the Board looked at "rounds" of petitions, basically considering those situations where a first round of petitions was filed, an institution decision was made, then another round of petitions was filed.  In 95% of all cases, there was only a single round of petitions. In 5% of cases, there was a second round of petitions and in less than 0.1% were there any subsequent rounds of petitions. From this, the PTAB concluded that there are really very few instances in which multiple rounds of petitions were filed.

Question 7: What is the institution rate counting by patent v. counting by petition?

Looking at the data gathered, the PTAB compared the institution rate by patent as compared to the rate by petition. As shown in the table below, while the institution rate by patent is higher than the institution rate by petition, the trend year over year is very similar whether measured by patent or by petition. For 2017, the institution rate by patent is 70%.

Question 8: What is the ultimate outcome by patent versus the ultimate outcome by petition?

As noted above, when considering the ultimate outcome by patent as compared to the ultimate outcome by petition, the Board determined that 69% of all petitions result in a patent remaining unchanged and 58% of patents are unchanged at the end of one or more AIA proceedings. The trial outcomes are shown in the chart below:

After reporting the results of the internal study, Chief Judge Ruschke addressed General Plastic Industrial, which the PTAB recently identified as precedential. In that case, the Board provided a list of factors to be considered in connection with the decision to institute on multiple petitions. These factors are listed below:

  1. Whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent;
  2. Whether at the time of the filing of the first petition, the petitioner knew or should have known of the prior art asserted in the second petition;
  3. Whether at the time of filing of the second petition, the petitioner already received the patent owner's preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board's decision on whether to institute review in the first petition;
  4. Length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition;
  5. Whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed* between the filings of the multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent;
  6. Finite resources of the Board;
  7. Requirement under 35 U.SC. ¶ 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review.

Chief Judge Ruschke also noted that three decisions have been newly designated as informative:

IPR 2016-01571 Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman
IPR2017-00739 Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech
IPR 2017-00777 Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech LLC

As a practical tip, the judges suggested that parties should be very explicit and clearabout the reason why you are filing multiple petitions. This will be considered in deciding whether to institute the petition.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions