直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for April and May 2025

June 30, 2025

Authored and Edited by Daniel F. Klodowski; Michelle G. Rice; Jason E. Stach; Elliot C. Cook

In April and May, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued 20 total opinions in appeals from post-grant proceedings at the PTAB.  In April, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 7 cases (77.78%), including a precedential opinion in Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart (Case No. 23-1603).  The court issued 2 opinions where every issue was reversed or vacated (22.22%), including a precedential opinion in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (No. 23-1208).  The court did not issue any mixed outcomes, in which at least one issue was affirmed and at least one issue was not, or dismissals on substantive (e.g., non-settlement) grounds.     

In May, a relatively favorable month for appellees compared to historical trends, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 6 cases (54.55%).  The court issued 2 opinions in which every issue was reversed or vacated (18.18%), including a precedential opinion in Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc. (No. 23-2211), and issued a mixed outcome in 2 appeals (18.18%).  The court dismissed 1 appeal on substantive (e.g., non-settlement) grounds (9.09%) in a precedential opinion in Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (No. 23-1300).

Through May 31, 2025, the Federal Circuit cumulatively decided 1,454 appeals from the PTAB in IPRs, CBMs, and PGRs.  While the vast majority of these appeals came from IPR proceedings, the number of PGR appeals has slowly increased over time.

In IPR appeals, the Federal Circuit has cumulatively affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 1028 cases (74.98%) and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 166 cases (12.11%).  A mixed outcome on appeal occurred in 137 cases (9.99%), and the court dismissed 40 IPR appeals (2.92%) without rendering a decision on the merits. 

In PGR appeals, the Federal Circuit cumulatively affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 19 cases (65.52%), issued a mixed outcome in 3 cases (10.34%), reversed or vacated every issue in 6 cases (20.69%), and dismissed 1 (3.45%) appeal on substantive (e.g., non-settlement) grounds.

Taken together, in decisions for IPR, CBM, and PGR appeals, the Federal Circuit affirmed every issue in 1088 cases (74.83%), issued a mixed outcome in 144 cases (9.90%), reversed or vacated every issue in 177 cases (12.17%), and dismissed 45 cases (3.09%) on substantive grounds.

Of the 1,454 IPR, CBM, and PGR cumulative appeals that it has considered, the Federal Circuit issued Rule 36 affirmances in 609 cases (41.88%).  The court issued written opinions, including affirmances, reversals, dismissals, and mixed decisions, in 845 cases (58.12%).  The ratio of Rule 36 affirmances to written decisions has generally trended downward over time and further declined through April and May.

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Daniel F. Klodowski
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4216
Email
Michelle_Yongyuan_Rice
Michelle G. Rice
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4229
Email
Jason E. Stach
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6428
Email
Elliot C. Cook
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2738
Email

Copyright © 2025 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. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay

May 14, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

When “and” and “e.g.” Matter: Federal Circuit Revives VLSI vs. Intel Case

May 14, 2026

IP Updates

Tenth Circuit Sides with Netflix in Tiger King Copyright Challenge 

May 5, 2026

Conference

International Trade Commission Litigation & Enforcement

May 4-5, 2026

Washington, DC

Articles

Unpacking Squires’ Recent Discretionary Denial Guidance Focusing on American Manufacturing

April 24, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patents Because Inventorship Could Not Be Corrected Without Giving All Inventors Notice and an Opportunity to Be Heard

April 22, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP