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 PTAB Statistics: Unique Insights Into Claim Disposition and Construction in Final Written Decisions

October 31, 2014

Authored and Edited by Kai Rajan; Daniel F. Klodowski; Elliot C. Cook; Aaron L. Parker; Joseph M. Schaffner

With over 2,000 petitions filed since AIA trials became available, filings have exceeded even the USPTO’s ambitious projections. As of October 6, 2014, the PTAB has issued more than 130 final written decisions on the merits in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and covered business method reviews (CBMs). While basic statistics on filings, institutions, settlements, and decisions are available, little is known regarding how the PTAB analyzes instituted cases. For many important trends—such as how the PTAB has handled claim disposition and claim construction issues—following the cases or machine-tracking the data is not sufficient to understand the PTAB’s methodology. To interpret the decisions and reliably identify trends, data analytics aided by experience with PTAB proceedings is needed.

Finnegan’s AIA Blog now offers statistics and graphics based on claim disposition and claim construction data from PTAB final written decisions. These unique statistics and graphics illuminate aspects of IPR and CBM final written decisions that are relevant to parties and practitioners.

Based on claim disposition data, we address claim survival, patent-holder claim concession, and cancellation rates. We approach these issues both on a per-claim and per-case basis to show different perspectives. We also differentiate between IPRs and CBMs, and will add claim disposition data in post-grant reviews (PGRs) when those final written decisions begin to issue.

Our claim construction statistics examine which sources of data (e.g., intrinsic evidence, expert testimony, dictionary definitions, litigation materials, etc.) the PTAB relied on in final written decisions. We also consider which standard of review (the “broadest reasonable interpretation” or the Phillips standard) the PTAB applied. Of course, while some of the data requires subjective interpretation, the identifiable trends are interesting and useful.

Beyond these issue-specific statistics, we also provide data regarding the time between the institution of a proceeding and a final written decision. Other statistics include a breakdown of technologies involved in PTAB proceedings, as well as a listing of PTAB judges who have authored or participated in the most final written decisions.

These statistics and graphics are intended to benefit practitioners and parties interested in better understanding outcomes and the PTAB’s decision-making in final written decisions. And there is more to come. Not only will we regularly update these statistics, we will also add new types of statistics as the PTAB issues more final written decisions. Visit the AIA Blog again soon for further insights into PTAB final written decisions.

Tags

Final Written Decision

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Contacts

Kai Rajan
Of Counsel
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4307
Email
Daniel F. Klodowski
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4216
Email
Elliot C. Cook
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2738
Email
Aaron L. Parker
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4387
Email

Copyright © 2014 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

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

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

At the PTAB Blog

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

May 20, 2026

Conference

19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe

May 19-20, 2026

Amsterdam

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