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

IPR and CBM Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in June 2015

July 14, 2015

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

In the 36 Final Written Decisions issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in June, the Board cancelled 446 (86.27%) of the instituted claims, and it held that 47 (9.09%) of the instituted claims were not proven unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.  Patent owners conceded 24 (4.64%) of the instituted claims through motions to amend.

PTAB July

On a per-case basis, no instituted or substitute claims survived in 26 (72.22%) of the decisions, all instituted claims survived in 5 (13.89%) of the decisions, and a mixed outcome occurred in 5 (13.89%) of the decisions.  A mixed outcome occurs where at least one instituted or substitute claim remains patentable, and at least one is cancelled, in a Board decision.

PTAB July_2

More detailed cumulative statistics on the Board’s IPR and CBM decisions, updated through July 1, 2015, are available here on the AIA Blog.

Contacts

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 © 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

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