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 – January 15, 2019

February 12, 2019

Authored and Edited by David C. Seastrunk; Daniel F. Klodowski; Elliot C. Cook; Jason E. Stach

Through January 15, 2019, the Federal Circuit decided 466 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 348 (74.68%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 60 (12.88%) cases.  A mixed outcome on appeal, where at least one issue was affirmed and at least one issue was vacated or reversed, occurred in 43 (9.23%) cases. 

The court dismissed 15 (3.22%) appeals without rendering a decision on the merits.  Dismissals may occur, for example, where the Federal Circuit determines that it does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal, such as in an appeal from a PTAB institution decision. 

As the Supreme Court established in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, the Federal Circuit is barred from considering appeals from at least certain aspects of institution decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).  Dismissals may also result from settlements among the parties to the appeal, or where the court determines that a prior decision renders an appeal moot.  However, with the Federal Circuit’s en banc opinion in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. determining that decisions regarding the IPR time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) are reviewable on appeal, the number of PTAB appeals to the Federal Circuit may increase over time. 

The volume of issues on appeal may also increase as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu.  In response to SAS, the Patent Office has decided that, if it institutes review on any claim, it will also institute review on every claim and ground presented in a petition.  The Federal Circuit has also remanded some final written decisions issued after SAS where the PTAB did not consider every challenge presented in a petition.

An important tool that helps the Federal Circuit manage its significant docket of PTAB appeals is the Rule 36 affirmance, whereby the court affirms the PTAB without rendering a full, written opinion.  Of the 466 PTAB appeals it has considered thus far, the Federal Circuit has issued Rule 36 affirmances in 217 (46.47%) cases.  The court issued written opinions, including affirmances, reversals, dismissals, and mixed decisions, in 250 (53.53%) cases.

Breaking down the numbers further, in its appeals from IPRs, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 320 (74.42%) cases, reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 57 (13.26%) cases, issued a mixed outcome in 42 (9.77%) cases, and dismissed 11 (2.56%) cases. 

In CBM appeals, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 28 (75.68%) cases, issued a mixed outcome in 2 (5.41%) cases, dismissed 4 (10.81%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 3 (8.11%) cases.

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.

Tags

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), 2019 Top Insights

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Contacts

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

Copyright © 2019 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.

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

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