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

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

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

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