2017 Mid-Year Statistics Point to Continued Rise in IPR Petitions

28 April 2017 PTAB Trial Insights Blog
Authors: Stephen B. Maebius

March 31st marked the mid-point of the PTAB’s fiscal year and the release of mid-year statistics on AIA proceedings. The full report of the mid-year statistics is found here. One interesting trend is a continued increase in overall number of IPR petitions (mid-year there are 996 IPR petitions compared to a total of 1565 for all of last fiscal year, which represents a 27% increase in filings if the same number are filed in the second half of the year).

Another interesting trend is that PGR petitions are not increasing that much, despite the significantly increasing number of post-AIA filed patents each month now being available for these proceedings. Last year there were a total of 24 PGR petitions filed, and so far at mid-year in 2017 there are only 14.

The lowest IPR institution % is for pharma/bio at 63%, while the highest % IPR institution rate is in the mechanical area at 72%. However, when considering institution %, it is also important to consider the number of pre-institution settlements, which have the effect of removing IPR petitions from the pool available for institution, which may skew the institution % lower if one assumes these are some of the stronger petitions because they induced settlement quickly. The number of pre-institution IPR settlements in 2015 was 275 and in 2016 was 229. Mid-year of 2017, there have already been 129 pre-institution settlements, showing another strong year for settlements.

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