Inter Partes Review – Parties Favor Settlement Over Board Decisions

25 September 2014 PharmaPatents Blog

Now that we have a growing body of statistics on the Inter Partes Review proceedings created by the America Invents Act, it is interesting to see how the proceedings are being resolved. With the significant attention given to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions, it may come as a surprise to learn that a significant majority of IPRs are terminated by settlement.


According to USPTO statistics, as of April 2014, about 1405 Inter Partes Review Petitions had been filed and 167 had been terminated.



The four most common types of termination are:

  1. settlement before institution;
  2. settlement after institution;
  3. request for adverse judgment; and
  4. final written decision.

Of these, settlement is the most popular type of termination, representing 70% of the terminations. The number of settlement-based terminations before institution vs. after institution are similar, with 53% being settled before and 64% after. This begs the question: Why would a patent owner settle before an IPR even has been instituted?

The Incentives to Settle Early

Initially, it may seem surprising that so many settlements occur before the IPR has progressed to the point of institution. When the petitioner has yet to overcome the threshold burden of institution, it should not have much leverage in settlement negotiations. (The PTAB cannot institute an IPR unless the petitioner shows in its petition that it has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on invalidating at least one of the challenged claims.)  However, there are sound reasons for early settlement.

First, the PTAB has the right to reject settlements and issue a final decision once the proceedings have advanced sufficiently, and it is unclear where or when the PTAB will draw that line. For example, in Blackberry Corporation and Blackberry Limited v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC (IPR2013-00036, Paper 64), the PTAB determined that the proceedings had advanced enough to warrant a final decision after the petitioner filed a reply to the response and an oral hearing was held. Would the PTAB have accepted the settlement if it had been entered before the oral hearing? Before the substantive papers had been filed? 

Second, the statistics to date show that the PTAB has instituted the vast majority of IPR petitions where that decision point has been reached:



Thus, a patent owner may believe that, at least statistically, the petition is likely to be granted.

Third, a patent owner may be concerned that any PTAB decision on the merits is likely to invalidate at least some of the challenged claims. Statistically speaking, the PTAB has earned its reputation as a “Patent Death Squad.”

Petitioners have a simple financial reason to settle before institution, since institution comes with a $14000 price tag. Moreover, because of the one-year statutory time period within which an instituted IPR must be decided, both parties are likely to incur significant costs early in an IPR proceeding, such that an early settlement may be the only way to avoid incurring those costs.

Choosing Certainty

Both patent owners and petitioners may be opting for early settlement to avoid the uncertainty that surrounds any IPR proceeding. Since IPRs only have been available for two years, every PTAB decision charts new territory, and even procedural questions are unresolved. Moreover, the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court have yet to decide whether the PTAB’s interpretations and applications of the governing statutes are correct. Thus, even following PTAB precedent is an uncertain prospect. It will be interesting to see whether the settlement rate changes once some of these issues are resolved.

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