PTAB Post-Grant Fees Slated To Increase

08 November 2016 PTAB Trial Insights Blog
Authors: Michael R. Houston

The USPTO recently announced a proposed new fee schedule in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in search of revenue to recover its projected $3 billion aggregated operating costs for the 2017 fiscal year. If enacted, it would be the Office’s most significant fee adjustment since March 2013. The Office is proposing to increase 205 existing patent and PTAB fees.  There are also 42 new fees being introduced or replacing one of the 14 fees that are being discontinued. The proposed changes will likely take effect October 1, 2017, the beginning of the Office’s next fiscal year. The Office is accepting public comments until December 2, 2016. 

The proposed adjustments include fees associated with patent application filing, search and examination, RCE, PTAB appeals, ex parte reexamination, IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs.  Among the 205 adjusted items, increases associated with utility patent prosecution are the smallest, with most increases being less than 10% (more details can be found in our blog article here).

On the other hand, the proposed adjustment in PTAB fees is more significant. For IPRs, the fee tied to the filing of a petition would see a 58% increase from the original $9,000 to $14,000 per case (up to 20 claims).  Meanwhile, the post-institution IPR fee would increase an additional 18% from the original $14,000 to $16,500 per case (up to 15 claims). For an instituted IPR, the overall fees would thus rise from $23,000 to $30,500 for the standard number of claims.

Petition fees are also proposed to rise for PGR and CBM filings as well, albeit by a smaller percentage than IPRs. However, the post-institution fee for PGR and CBM proceedings would be raised by a higher percentage, 22% from the original $18,000 to $22,000 per case (up to 15 claims).

The Office indicates that the proposed fee adjustments are in furtherance of its goal of supporting the PTAB’s continued efforts to recruit staff and deliver high quality decisions within the AIA time frame. The Office further indicates that even with the proposed fee increases, the charges are still generally at or below the Office’s current costs (see Table 11 below). The Office currently reviews fee levels on at least a biennial basis. Further adjustment is possible down the road.


From stakeholders’ perspective, while these proposed fee increases are not insignificant, they still represent a relatively small fraction of the overall cost that petitioners may incur in such proceedings, which may reach several hundred thousand dollars through trial. Even with the proposed fee increases and other costs, AIA trials remain considerably less expensive than traditional patent litigation.  Thus, any chilling effect is expected to be small, although it would not be surprising to see the number of filings rise just prior to the fee increases taking effect.

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