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 September 2015

October 23, 2015

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

In the 70 Final Written Decisions issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in September, the Board cancelled 869 (93.44%) of the instituted claims and declined to cancel 56 (6.02%) of the instituted claims.  A patent owner conceded 5 (0.54%) of the instituted claims by filing a disclaimer.

On a per-case basis, no instituted or substitute claims survived in 62 (88.57%) of the decisions, all instituted claims survived in 4 (5.71%) of the decisions, and a mixed outcome occurred in 4 (5.71%) 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 Final Written Decision.

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

Numbers of final written decisions by technology center are available here.

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

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

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

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

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