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

Understanding the Fees Associated with the Options for Challenging Issued Patents

April 22, 2013

Authored and Edited by Aaron L. Parker; Jeffrey A. Berkowitz

While the fees for filing inter partes review (IPR) or post grant review (PGR) proceedings (including the transitional program for covered business method patents (CBM TPGR)) initially seemed prohibitive for cost conscious third party challengers, the USPTO has recently decreased the total fees for filing these proceedings. The final fee schedule, identified in the Federal Register on January 18, 2013 (Federal Register/ Vol. 78, No. 13/ January 18, 2013/ Part II/ 37 CFR Parts 1, 41, and 42 – Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees; Final Rule), became effective on March 19, 2013, and can be found here: www.aiablog.com/ptab-filing-fees/

The fee for filing IPR proceedings, which was $27,200, is now divided into a $9,000 filing fee and a $14,000 post institution fee, for a total of $23,000. On the other hand, the fee for filing PGR (or covered business method review) proceedings, which was $35,800, is now divided into a $12,000 filing fee and an $18,000 post institution fee, for a total of $30,000. As pointed out in the final fee schedule, the filing and institution fees increase if the number of claims challenged exceeds 20 (for filing) and 15 (upon institution).

While these fees are significantly greater than the fee for filing an ex parte reexamination (recently decreased from $17,750 to $12,000), the USPTO will refund the institution fee if the IPR or PGR proceedings are not instituted by the PTAB. The potential for this refund may encourage cost conscious third parties to consider filing a request for IPR or PGR, if available, rather than a request for ex parte reexamination, depending on the nature of the patent being challenged.

Tags

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Contacts

Aaron L. Parker
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4387
Email
Jeffrey A. Berkowitz
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2710
Email

Copyright © 2013 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

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Seminar

Future IP UK

October 21, 2026

London

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

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

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