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 Through April 30, 2020

May 29, 2020

Authored and Edited by Daniel F. Klodowski; Eric A. Liu; Jason E. Stach; Elliot C. Cook

Through April 30, 2020, the Federal Circuit decided 718 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 524 (72.98%) cases and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 100 (13.93%) cases.  A mixed outcome on appeal, where at least one issue was affirmed and at least one issue was vacated or reversed, occurred in 68 (9.47%) cases. 

The court also dismissed 26 (3.62%) 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 many (if not most) aspects of institution decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).  This includes appeals of institution decisions involving the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) time bar, as the Court recently explained in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies. 

Breaking down the numbers further, in its appeals from IPRs, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 489 (72.77%) cases, reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 96 (14.29%) cases, issued a mixed outcome in 65 (9.67%) cases, and dismissed 22 (3.27%) cases. 

In CBM appeals, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 35 (76.09%) cases, issued a mixed outcome in 3 (6.52%) cases, dismissed 4 (8.70%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 4 (8.70%) cases.

 

An important tool helping 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 718 IPR and CBM appeals it has considered thus far, the Federal Circuit issued Rule 36 affirmances in 334 (46.52%) cases.  The court issued written opinions, including affirmances, reversals, dismissals, and mixed decisions, in 384 (53.48%) cases.

The summary affirmance rate for IPR appeals closely tracks the combined average with CBMs, perhaps unsurprisingly due to the relatively high proportion of appeals from IPR proceedings.  The Federal Circuit issued written decisions in 357 (53.13%) IPR appeals, and issued summary affirmances in 315 (46.88%) appeals.

            The summary affirmance rate for CBM appeals, however, is currently somewhat lower than in IPRs.  The Federal Circuit issued summary affirmances in 19 (41.30%) CBM appeals, and issued written decisions in 27 (58.70%) CBM appeals.

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 at the bottom of the page to receive notifications of new posts via email.

Tags

America Invents Act (AIA), AIA statistics, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

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 © 2020 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

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Redesigns Done Right at the ITC: Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Determination of Noninfringement of Redesigned Products

June 26, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Noninfringement Ruling in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Based on Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel, and the Disclosure-Dedication Rule

June 26, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Holds Defend Trade Secrets Act Claim Untimely Filed

June 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