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

Statistics Show the Trend Continues: All Claims in CBM Review Have Been Held Unpatentable

November 21, 2014

Authored and Edited by Aaron L. Parker

As the first appeals from AIA Trials begin to trickle into the Federal Circuit, we note that parties filed more petitions in October than any month yet. In the twenty-fifth month of their infancy, IPRs, CBMs, and now PGRs have continued to prove popular, making the PTAB the busiest single forum for patent challenges.

Our data tracking suggests no signs of the PTAB slowing down any time soon. While anecdotal evidence shows that panels may be willing to decline institution based on related petitions, see Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, IPR2014-00535, Paper 9 at 19 (Sep. 24, 2014), of those instituted and reaching the merits, the majority of claims continue to be held unpatentable.

Notably, every claim that has been considered and ruled on in CBM review has been held unpatentable.

PTAB-STATS--CBM_Results_Claim-11.21.2014

PTAB-STATS--CBM_Results_Case-11.21.2014

While institution statistics are slightly lower for CBMs, the data shows that thus far, CBM review remains a favorable forum for parties challenged over patents that qualify for the review.

Tags

Final Written Decision

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Contacts

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

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Seminar

IAM and WTR Live: Australasia IP Forum 2026

August 11, 2026

Melbourne

Conference

Finnegan IP Summit 2026: Celebrating an Inclusive Talent Pipeline

August 11-13, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

13th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law

July 29-30, 2026

Boston

Conference

2026 China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference

July 22-24, 2026

Shanghai

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

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