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

Introducing: IPR and CBM Instituted Claim Survival Rate by Technology Center

December 21, 2015

Authored and Edited by David C. Seastrunk; Elliot C. Cook; Daniel F. Klodowski; Aaron L. Parker

Through December 1, 2015, the PTAB has ruled on the patentability of 9,351 instituted claims through final written decisions in IPR and CBM proceedings, with 7,442 (79.58%) instituted claims being cancelled by the PTAB, 1,571 (16.80%) instituted claims surviving, and 339 (3.62%) instituted claims being conceded by the patent owner.  More detailed cumulative disposition statistics on the Board’s IPR and CBM decisions, updated through December 1, 2015, are available here on the AIA Blog.

PTAB-STATS--IPR_CBM_Results_Claim-12.15

It is clear, however, that the Board has not disposed of patent claims equally across the various technology centers to which the Board assigns its cases.  While the overall survival rate of instituted claims across all technology centers through December 1 is 16.80%, a number reflecting both claims cancelled by the Board and claims conceded by patent owners, the survival rates of claims in certain technology centers deviate substantially from the mean.

Instituted claims in technology center 1600, which covers patents in the fields of biotechnology and organic chemistry (including pharmaceuticals), have had the highest instituted claim survival rate at 42.67%.  This is approximately 2.5 times higher than the average survival rate of 16.80% for all technologies.  At the other end of the spectrum, no instituted claim has survived in technology center 2900, which covers design patents.

Of course, some technology centers receive more PTAB petitions than others.  To date, design patents have only been disposed of in 4 IPR final written decisions (1 claim per proceeding), while there have been 46 IPR final written decisions in technology center 1600 involving 689 instituted claims.  The instituted claim survival rates for the top three technology centers by the number of issued final written decisions, 2800 (Electrical), 2600 (Communications), and 2100 (Computer Architecture & Software), each fall within 3% of the average instituted claim survival rate.

Cumulative instituted claim survival rates by technology center will be an ongoing feature of the AIA Blog.  

Various other PTAB metrics collected and generated by Finnegan are reserved for the use of Finnegan and its clients.

Tags

Final Written Decision

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Contacts

Elliot C. Cook
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2738
Email
Daniel F. Klodowski
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4216
Email
Aaron L. Parker
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4387
Email

Copyright © 2015 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

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

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

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 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