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

Prosecution First Blog

Supplemental Examination: What Do the Numbers Tell Us?

August 19, 2013

Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy; Jeffrey A. Berkowitz

The USPTO posts raw statistics of filings for a number of proceedings including supplemental examination. A link to the USPTO’s AIA statistics can be found here: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/statistics.jsp. It should be noted that the data presented in the AIA statistics by the Office does not take into account whether the filing satisfied the statutory and regulatory requirements and was determined to be compliant. Nonetheless, the data serves as a good source to determine how filings, like supplemental examination, are not only being used, but also to what extent. Here, we take a look at supplemental examination and the filings to date.

As of August 2, 2013, the USTPO indicates that there were a total of 33 supplemental examinations filed. Of the 33 filings, there are 16 filings that are publically available as of July 30, 2013, as provided in PAIR. When looking at the numbers for supplemental examination, it is important to keep in mind that a supplemental examination request only becomes public once it is deemed compliant with the filing requirements and a filing date assigned. Moreover if a request for supplemental examination is deficit and not corrected by the patent owner, no filing date is assigned and thus, not available to the public.

Based on the 16 publically available supplemental examination requests, there are 3 supplemental examination requests that are awaiting a PTO determination of whether a substantial new question of patentability exists, as of July 30, 2013. The Office is required to conduct and conclude supplemental examination within three months after a request is filed. Thus, of the 13 publically available supplemental examinations, there have been only 3 instances where the Office found no substantial new question of patentability. And, 5 of the publically available supplemental examinations have an associated litigation. In those associated litigations, some of the court proceedings have been stayed in view of the supplement examination/ex parte reexamination proceeding.

While the filing numbers for supplemental examination do not rival other AIA filings, like preissuance submission and inter partes review, practitioners are finding situations in which submission of information for the Office to consider, reconsider, or correct exist.

Supplemental Examination Request Final

 

Tags

supplemental examination, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Contacts

Adriana L. Burgy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4345
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

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

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

Conference

19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe

May 19-20, 2026

Amsterdam

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Articles

COPPA’s Amended Rule Is Now in Full Effect: What Operators Need to Know

May 15, 2026

Seminar

IP Strategy at the Crossroads: Technology, Enforcement, and Contracts

May 15, 2026

Taipei

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Netflix Prevails in Copyright Infringement Suit Regarding Tiger King

May 14, 2026

Webinar

Implementation of Long-Arm Jurisdiction by the UPC Court and German National Courts: Strategic Considerations and Practical Implications

May 12, 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