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

PTAB Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2025

June 4, 2025

Authored and Edited by Daniel F. Klodowski; Umber Aggarwal; Deena Kablaoui Lanier; Nicholas A. Eitsert; A. Sasha Hoyt; Elliot C. Cook

PTAB trial outcomes in March and April generally tracked long-term statistical trends.  In March, the PTAB cancelled 375 (72.25%) instituted claims across 34 IPR and PGR Final Written Decisions, including decisions issued following remand from the Federal Circuit.  After review, 138 (26.59%) instituted claims survived, and patent owners conceded 6 (1.16%) instituted claims through motions to amend or disclaimer.  For comparison, the cumulative average cancellation rate of instituted claims in IPR, CBM, and PGR Final Written Decisions is about 74%.

On a per-case basis, no instituted or substitute claims survived in 22 (64.71%) decisions, all instituted claims survived in 8 (23.53%) decisions, and 4 (11.76%) decisions had a mixed outcome in which at least one instituted or substitute claim survived and at least one instituted claim was cancelled. 

In April, a relatively difficult month for patent owners, the PTAB cancelled 237 (84.64%) instituted claims across 22 IPR and PGR Final Written Decisions. In those decisions, 43 (15.36%) instituted claims survived, and patent owners did not concede any instituted claims through motions to amend or disclaimer. 

On a per-case basis, no instituted or substitute claims survived in 16 (72.73%) decisions, all instituted claims survived in 3 (13.64%) decisions, and a mixed outcome occurred in 3 (13.64%) decisions in April.  

Turning to motions to amend that were addressed on the merits in a Final Written Decision, the PTAB has cumulatively granted 677 (15.54%) proposed substitute claims while denying 3,679 (84.46%) proposed substitute claims through April 30, 2025. 

Patentees have had slightly more success with motions to amend in PGRs.  Through April 30, the PTAB granted 69 (20.60%) proposed substitute claims in PGR motions to amend while denying 266 (79.40%) proposed substitute claims.

The overall cumulative instituted claim survival rate in IPRs, CBMs, and PGRs through April 30, 2025, broken down by technology center, is as follows:

The cumulative number of Final Written Decisions through April 30, 2025, separated by technology center, is as follows:

Additional cumulative statistics on the Board’s IPR, CBM, and PGR decisions, updated through April 30, 2025, are available here on the At the PTAB blog. 

Various other PTAB metrics collected and generated by Finnegan are reserved for the use of Finnegan and its clients.  Stay tuned to the At the PTAB Blog for the latest updates, analysis, and statistics on all aspects of PTAB practice.  Subscribe to receive notifications of new posts via email.

 

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Daniel F. Klodowski
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4216
Email
Umber Aggarwal
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2423
Email
Deena Kablaoui Lanier
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4115
Email
Nicholas A. Eitsert
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4157
Email
A. Sasha Hoyt
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4230
Email
Elliot C. Cook
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2738
Email

Copyright © 2025 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

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