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 October, November, and December 2024

February 7, 2025

Authored and Edited by Daniel F. Klodowski; Audrey J. Parker; Jason E. Stach; Elliot C. Cook

The outcomes of post-grant appeals from the PTAB to the Federal Circuit in October, November, and December were generally in line with long-term trends favoring appellees.  In October, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 7 cases (87.5%).  The court issued 1 mixed outcome (12.5%) in which at least one issue was affirmed and at least one issue was not, and did not dismiss any appeals on substantive (e.g., non-settlement) grounds or render an opinion in which every issue was either reversed or vacated.  None of the October opinions were precedential.

In November, an unusual month due to the uniformity of appellate outcomes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in all 6 cases in which it rendered an opinion.  The court did not issue any opinions in PTAB post-grant appeals with a mixed outcome, a substantive dismissal, or in which every issue was reversed or vacated.  None of the November opinions were precedential.

In December, the court issued 8 opinions (72.73%) in which every issue was affirmed.  The court issued 2 opinions with a mixed outcome (18.18%), including in its precedential opinion in Cytiva BioProcess R&D AB v. JSR Corp. (No. 23-2074).  The court also rendered one precedential opinion in which every issue was reversed or vacated (9.09%) in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks (No. 23-1636). 

Through December 31, 2024, the Federal Circuit cumulatively decided 1,382 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 977 cases (74.87%) and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 157 cases (12.03%).  A mixed outcome on appeal occurred in 131 cases (10.04%), and the court dismissed 40 IPR appeals (3.07%) without rendering a decision on the merits.  Compared to the preceding three months, the proportion of cases in which every issue was affirmed increased slightly. 

 

In PGR appeals, the Federal Circuit cumulatively affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 16 cases (69.57%), issued a mixed outcome in 3 cases (13.04%), and reversed or vacated every issue in 4 cases (17.39%).  No PGR appeals have been dismissed on substantive grounds.

Taken together, in decisions for IPR, CBM, and PGR appeals, the Federal Circuit affirmed every issue in 1034 cases (74.82%), issued a mixed outcome in 138 cases (9.99%), reversed or vacated every issue in 166 cases (12.01%), and dismissed 44 cases (3.18%) on substantive grounds.

Of the 1,382 IPR, CBM, and PGR cumulative appeals that it has considered, the Federal Circuit issued Rule 36 affirmances in 592 cases (42.84%).  The court issued written opinions, including affirmances, reversals, dismissals, and mixed decisions, in 790 cases (57.16%).  The ratio of Rule 36 affirmances to written decisions has generally trended downward over time but increased slightly over the October-December period.

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
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

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

May 14, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

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

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

Choice of Law in Patent Appeals: The Federal Circuit’s Issue-by-Issue Framework

May/June 2026

Articles

Unpacking Squires’ Recent Discretionary Denial Guidance Focusing on American Manufacturing

April 24, 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