United States: Patent Owners' Use Of Unexpected Results Before IPR Institution

Patent owners in the life sciences and chemistry areas must frequently decide whether to submit evidence of unexpected results as part of their preliminary responses in inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In some instances, the evidence of unexpected results may already be of record in the challenged patent's prosecution history, and the patent may even have been granted based on such evidence. In others, patent owners may have generated new data establishing that the claimed invention exhibits unexpectedly superior properties or results. In addition to considering the persuasiveness of the data, patent owners must strategically consider whether unexpected results evidence and arguments will be persuasive to the PTAB at the preliminary stage of a trial and lead to non-institution.

To assist patent owners with this important strategic decision, we have reviewed over 90 institution decisions issued by the PTAB that addressed a patent owner's submission of evidence and arguments related to unexpected results. Below we provide statistics on the PTAB's response to this evidence, summarize key decisions in which the PTAB responded favorably or unfavorably to such evidence, and identify factors for a patent owner to consider in its analysis of this key strategic question.

As of Sept. 8, 2017, we identified 184 PTAB institution decisions that referred to unexpected results. In 97 of these decisions, the board addressed the patent owner's submission of unexpected results evidence. In the remaining 87 decisions, the patent owner did not submit any evidence of unexpected results, but the board nonetheless mentioned the issue of unexpected results in its decision. A breakdown of the 97 cases in which unexpected results was addressed by the board is as follows:

As depicted, the board found unexpected results evidence persuasive in only 7.7 percent of these cases, and found the evidence to be either unpersuasive or preserved the issue for trial in the remaining 86.9 percent of cases.

Cases Where the Board Found Evidence of Unexpected Results Persuasive at the Preliminary Stage of an IPR

Evidence of unexpected results favorably influenced the board's decision not to institute trial in just seven of the 97 cases examined. In most of these instances, the board recognized that "substantially the same" arguments had been previously fully considered, analyzed, and accepted by the PTO and therefore exercised its discretion to decline institution. For example, in Lower Drug Prices for Consumers, LLC v. Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd., IPR2016-00379, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. July 1, 2016), the PTAB denied institution, finding that the petitioner's obviousness challenges were based on the same prior art reference and arguments that were addressed during prosecution of the patent. Id. at 9. There, the board itself had previously found that the patent owner established unexpected results in an ex parte appeal during prosecution, and that the petitioner's arguments against the evidence were the same as raised by the examiner. Id. The board even noted that the petition failed to address any of the asserted deficiencies found by the earlier panel and thus concluded that it was "not inclined to reconsider the Board's prior decision." Id. at 12.

The board has similarly denied institution when the prosecution history contained evidence of unexpected results and the examiner relied, at least in part, on such evidence in granting the patent. Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC v. Hoffman-LaRoche Inc., IPR2015-01792, Paper 14, p. 18 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2016). The board has even considered evidence of secondary considerations from a parallel proceeding before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) as persuasive. Robert Bosch Tool Corp. v. SD3, LLC, IPR2016-01753, Paper 15, pp. 27–39 (Mar. 22, 2017). In this case, the patent owner relied upon evidence that was introduced during the ITC investigation against the petitioner, in which the administrative law judge concluded that the evidence of secondary considerations was "very strong" in favor of the patent owner. Id. at 28. Although the board found secondary factors other than unexpected results more persuasive, it relied on all of these secondary considerations in its decision to deny institution. Id. at 33.

Commonly, the PTAB will cite its discretionary power, under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), as an additional reason for declining to institute trial. See Adva Optical Networking, Inc. v. Rad Data Commc'ns Ltd., IPR2016-01848, Paper 6, pp. 20–21, 24 (Mar. 9, 2017); Robert Bosch Tool Corp. v. SD3, LLC, IPR2016-01754, Paper 15, pp. 19–20 (Mar. 22, 2017). Section 325(d) provides that, "[i]n determining whether to institute or order a proceeding ... the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office." In considering the petitioner's arguments, the board will examine whether the petition sets forth new arguments, persuasive facts, or data to justify reexamining a previous finding by the PTO supporting unexpected results. Merely introducing an expert declaration containing the same arguments from the prosecution history may not be found sufficient to disturb a finding of unexpected results. Adva Optical, IPR2016-01848, Paper 6 at 20. If the petition fails to set forth any new evidence or arguments beyond what was in the prosecution history, the board may decline to "reweigh the evidence" and not institute trial. Id. The board has also found that it is petitioner's burden to address evidence of unexpected results known to the petitioner either from earlier prosecution, litigation, or the specification, and has denied institution when petitioner has failed to do so. See e.g., Praxair Distrib., Inc. v. INO Therapeutics, Inc., IPR2015-00522, Paper 12 at 16–17 (P.T.A.B. July 29, 2015).

To successfully persuade the board that evidence of unexpected results establishes nonobviousness, the evidence should be directly commensurate in scope with the claims at issue. The PTAB's decision in Lupin Ltd. v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc., IPR 2015-00405, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. July 9, 2015), exemplifies this requirement. There, the patent owner presented evidence that its patented compound, fosamprenavir, possessed unexpected results in the form of improved pharmacokinetics, lower side effects, and improved resistance profile than its parent drug. Id. at 18–19. Recognizing that one claim of the challenged patent was directed to compounds other than fosamprenavir, the board concluded that the unexpected results evidence was not commensurate in scope with that claim, and instituted trial regarding only that claim. Id. at 22–23. The board did not, however, institute trial on the claims that were directed only to fosamprenavir or its salts. Id.

As our analysis reveals, the PTAB rarely declines to institute trial on the basis of unexpected results evidence. In the few instances that it has done so, institution was denied because the petitioner proffered nearly identical arguments and prior art that the board had previously found unpersuasive. As demonstrated by Lupin, the board will interpret the arguments supporting unexpected results narrowly at the pre-institution stage, and may find that the proffered evidence only supports certain claims.

Cases Where the Board Was Not Persuaded by Evidence of Unexpected Results at the Preliminary Stage of an IPR

In most cases where the patent owner presented evidence of unexpected results in its preliminary response, the board acknowledged the evidence but instituted trial to allow for full development of the record. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. The Trustees of the Univ. of Pa., IPR2016-00458, Paper 7, p. 21 (P.T.A.B. July 14, 2016). In these decisions, the board declined to substantively examine the unexpected results evidence by emphasizing that the standard for institution requires only that there be a "reasonable likelihood" that the petitioner will prevail on just one challenged claim. To prevail at trial, in contrast, requires the challenger to establish unpatentability by a "preponderance of the evidence."

Comparing these two standards, the board often concludes that determination of unexpected results is premature at the pre-institution phase, and chooses to institute trial to "permit the parties to develop a more complete record during discovery." Eli Lilly, IPR 2016-00458 at 22; see also Umicore AG & Co. KG v. Basf Corp., IPR2015-01124, Paper 8, p. 22 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2015) ("At this stage of the proceeding, the records regarding such secondary considerations is incomplete, and the petitioner has not had the ability to fully respond to the specific arguments raised by patent owner in the preliminary response. Our final decision will consider the parties' full record of secondary considerations evidence developed during trial as part of our obviousness analysis."). The board, for example, may institute trial despite the prosecution history containing expert declarations affirming the existence of unexpected results. Mylan Pharms., Inc., v. Allergan, Inc., IPR2016-01129 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016). In Mylan, the board based its decision to institute on the fact that neither expert had yet been subject to cross-examination and concluded that it was "more appropriate to allow further evidence regarding any alleged unexpected results or other secondary considerations to be developed during trial." Id. at 21–22.

In 11 of the cases in which the PTAB was not persuaded by the proffered evidence of unexpected results, it commented on the persuasiveness of patent owner's evidence. For instance, in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., IPR2014-00676, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014), the board was not influenced by the patent owner's expert declarations from the prosecution history as evidencing unexpected results, finding that those declarations did not consider the prior art references at issue in the petition. Id. at 22. The board further found that the patent owner failed to adequately address "whether evidence of objective indicia are reasonably commensurate with the scope of the challenged claims, whether a sufficient nexus exists between such evidence and the merits of the claimed invention, or whether evidence of unexpected results establishes a difference between the results obtained and those of the closest prior art." Id. Considering the evidence of record at the time, the board found that the petitioner had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim, and instituted trial. Id. at 23.

The PTAB has often not been persuaded by unexpected results evidence when there were no assertions of such results in the prosecution history or the evidence was never before the examiner. Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII LLC v. Pozen Inc., IPR2015-01718, Paper 17, pp. 19–20 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017) (patent owner's unexpected results evidence included a declaration submitted in a continuation application, and post-filing date scientific publications were deemed issues for trial); Lupin Ltd. v. Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd., IPR2015-01097, Paper 9, pp. 17–18 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2015) (Patent Owner has not directed us to any clear or specific description in the Specification of the '131 patent or elsewhere, characterizing or establishing the results shown in the '131 patent as being unexpected). In these situations, the board has instituted trial to give the petitioner an opportunity to respond to this new evidence and to allow full development of the record.


At the preliminary phase of an IPR, the board is seldom so persuaded by evidence of unexpected results that it declines to institute trial. In the few situations where this has occurred, the patent owner demonstrated that the board (or, in one instance, the ITC) had previously accepted the evidence of unexpected results and that the petitioner failed to raise any persuasive new arguments against the evidence.

Importantly, the board appears to interpret any unexpected results evidence narrowly at the pre-institution stage, and to apply it only to claims that are directly commensurate in scope with the evidence. More commonly, the board will acknowledge the presence of the unexpected results evidence, but find that the standard of review for instituting trial weighs in favor of institution to allow the parties to develop the record as fully as possible.

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.

Events from this Firm
23 Oct 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

How do trademark and advertising trends impact your company? Join a discussion on the latest trends in the food and beverage industry in the United States and Europe.

24 Oct 2018, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Join the usual suspects from Finnegan as they take you through a detailed discussion of patent prosecution strategies from drafting to grant.

25 Oct 2018, Seminar, Melbourne, Australia

Finnegan is a Gold sponsor of IAM Magazine’s IPBC Australasia. The program will take place at the Sofitel Hotel in Melbourne, Australia.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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