A Look at the USPTO Backlog Statistics

19 September 2013 PharmaPatents Blog

As the USPTO fiscal year comes to an end on September 30, I thought this would be a good time to review the USPTO backlog statistics. The currently available data reflects the backlogs as of the start of August 2013, and reveals a decrease in the backlog of unexamined applications, a slight decrease in the backlog of RCEs, and an ever-growing increase in the backlog of ex parte appeals.

The Patents Dashboard 

The Patents Dashboard provides data on a number of parameters relating to ex parte examination. The following pendency parameters may be of most interest:

  • Unexamined patent application backlog: 591,665 (down from 596,159 in May)
  • Time to the first Office Action: 14.4 months (down from 14.5 months in February)
  • Forward looking time to first Office Action: 16 months (down from 16.5 months in May)
  • RCE backlog: 94,617 (down from 107,288 in May)
  • Total average pendency (including RCEs): 36.1 months
  • Track I pendency from petition grant to allowance: 4.9 months

The Appeal Dashboard

The Appeal Dashboard provides data on a number of parameters relating to ex parte appeals. The following parameters may be of most interest:

  • Total number of docketed appeals: 25,656
  • Number of appeals docketed for more than 14 months: 13,702
  • Number of appeals docketed for less than 10 months: 8,371
 The Process Production Report includes additional data:
  • Total number of pending appeals: 25,697
  • Number of appeals filed in FY 2013: 9,980
  • Number of appeals decided in FY 2013: 10,767

Contested Cases

The Process Production Report also includes data on contested cases:

  • Number of interference proceedings: 47
  • Number of inter partesreview proceedings: 399
    • 458 IPR petitions have been filed
    • 150 trials have been instituted
    • 22 petitions were denied
    • 37 proceedings were disposed of on the merits
  • Number of covered business method patent proceedings: 399
    • 48 CBM petitions have been filed
    • 12 trials have been instituted
    • 3 petitions were denied
    • 3 proceedings were disposed of on the merits

One post grant review petition was filed, but not granted.

One derivation petition was filed.

Looking Ahead To FY 2014

It is good to see that the USPTO is making progress on the new application and RCE backlogs, but the magnitude of the RCE backlog and the growing ex parte appeal backlog is troubling. The USPTO’s ability to address these problems will depend on its ability to hire and retain qualified examiners and administrative patent judges, and on the availability of funds to support its initiatives. While many hoped that the budget provisions of the America Invents Act would protect the USPTO’s spending authority from politics, the USPTO was not spared the effects of the sequester, and could be vulnerable if Congress is not able to agree on a new budget for FY 2014.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services