August 6, 2018
Authored and Edited by Daniel F. Klodowski; David C. Seastrunk; Michael R. Galgano; Aaron L. Parker; Elliot C. Cook
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued 44 IPR and CBM Final Written Decisions in June, including decisions following remands from the Federal Circuit, cancelling 425 (66.51%) instituted claims while declining to cancel 213 (33.33%) instituted claims. Patent owners conceded 1 (0.16%) claim through motions to amend or disclaimer in cases reaching a final decision. For comparison, the cumulative average rate of instituted claims cancelled in IPR and CBM Final Written Decisions is about 75%.

On a per-case basis, no instituted or substitute claims survived in 22 (50%) decisions, all instituted claims survived in 7 (15.91%) decisions, and a mixed outcome occurred in 15 (34.09%) 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.

The overall cumulative instituted claim survival rate, broken down by technology center, is as follows:

More detailed cumulative statistics on the Board’s IPR and CBM decisions, updated through July 1, 2018, are available here on the AIA Blog.
Statistics regarding the outcome of appeals to the Federal Circuit are available here.
Lists of the top 10 PTAB judges by panel appearances and authored opinions are available here.
Numbers of final written decisions by technology center and instituted claim survival rates by technology center are available here.
Various other PTAB metrics collected and generated by Finnegan are reserved for the use of Finnegan and its clients. Stay tuned to the AIA Blog for the latest updates, analysis, and statistics on all aspects of PTAB and Federal Circuit practice. Subscribe to the AIA Blog to receive notifications of new posts via email.
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
Hybrid Conference
Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California
October 19-20, 2026
San Francisco
Hybrid Conference
Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York
September 28-29, 2026
New York
European IP Blog
UPC Central Division Revokes Patent Covering Covid-19 Treatment Remdesivir
8 June 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.