The USPTO recently published updated statistics for filings under the AIA’s new preissuance submission, supplemental examination, and administrative trial provisions. Of note, the USPTO has not received a filing under the Transitional Program for Post-Grant Review of Covered Business Method Patents (CBM TPGR) in more than three months. The CBM TPGR is a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), providing for the review of patentability of one or more claims of a “covered business method patent.” The USPTO has received a total of 15 CBM TPGR filings since inception of the program on September 16, 2012.
While CBM TPGR filings have waned, third parties are taking advantage of the preissuance submission process, having submitting nearly 80 such filings in February. Through the preissuance submission process third parties are able to submit “patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance to examination” in pending patent applications for potential consideration by the examiner. 37 C.F.R. § 1.290(a). The USPTO has received a total of 440 preissuance submissions since September 16, 2012.
The USPTO received three supplemental examination requests in February. Supplemental examination allows a patent owner to request a supplemental examination of a patent so that the USPTO can consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent. The USPTO has received a total of nine supplemental examination requests since September 16, 2012.
Third parties filed 32 requests for Inter Partes Review (IPR) in February. IPR is a trial proceeding before the PTAB, providing for the review of patentability of one or more claims of a patent following the issuance of a patent or a reissue patent. Third parties have filed a total of 150 petitions for IPR since September 16, 2012.
Additional statistical information about filings under these AIA provisions is available at http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/statistics.jsp.
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.
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
May 20, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay
May 14, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
April 22, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for December 2025 - February 2026
March 31, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
Made in the USA? USPTO Adds Manufacturing and Small-Business Factors to PTAB Discretion
March 13, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in November 2025 to January 2026
March 6, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.