Patent Trial and Appeal Board Statistics

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The John Marshall Law School 57th Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference Post-Grant Procedures Michael P. Tierney Lead Administrative Patent Judge.
Advertisements

By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.
Webinar: Request for Comments on AIA Trial Proceedings Before the PTAB July 29, Scott Boalick, Vice Chief Judge (Acting) Patent Trial and Appeal.
Ex Parte (EP) and Inter Partes (IP) Proceedings Fiscal Years Statistical Data Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1 America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch.
America Invents Act (AIA): Overview of Key Provisions SLA Annual Conference June 10, 2013 Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator and Associate Commissioner.
Update on USPTO Activities November 18, 2014 Drew Hirshfeld Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy 1.
What Do In-House Counsel Need to Know? AIA Proceedings Molly Kocialski, Senior Patent Counsel, Oracle Dion Messer, General Counsel - IP, Limelight Networks.
An Inside Look at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Scott Boalick Administrative Patent Judge Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
AIA Trial Roundtables 1. Welcome 2 Agenda TimeTopic 1:00 PM Welcome 1:10 PMPresentation Overview of trials, statistics, and lessons learned (30 minutes)
Speeding It Up at the USPTO July 2013 July 23, 2013.
BIPC.COM STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF POST ISSUANCE PATENTABILITY REVIEW: THE NEW, OLD, AND NO LONGER Presented By: Todd R. Walters, Esq. B UCHANAN, I NGERSOLL.
Administrative Trials
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association CURRENT TRENDS/EFFECTS OF AIA on US Patent Practice at the US Patent.
Connecticut Intellectual Property Law Association Scott E. Kamholz, M.D., Ph.D. Administrative Patent Judge Patent Trial and Appeal Board September 25,
Standing Sentinel Over Innovation: The Importance of a Balanced and Effective IP System Andrew C. Byrnes Chief of Staff to the Under Secretary of Commerce.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Update October 22, Chief Judge James Donald Smith Patent Trial and Appeal Board United States Patent and Trademark.
Recent Court Decisions Impacting Review Proceedings Under The AIA J. Steven Baughman Ropes & Gray LLP Nancy J. Linck, Esq. Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck.
© 2015 Fox Rothschild Inter Partes Review Lessons Learned Scott R. Bialecki Fox Rothschild LLP June 24, 2015.
A Comparative Analysis of Patent Post-Grant Review Procedures in the U
Post-Grant Proceedings Under The America Invents Act Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association “Washington in the West” Conference January 29,
Impact of US AIA: What Really Changed? 1 © AIPLA 2015.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson.
Christopher J. Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. Derivation Proceedings and Prior User Rights.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE TOM ENGELLENNER Pepper Hamilton, LLP.
Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Interplay between Litigation and the AIA __________ An Overview John B. Pegram Fish.
PTAB Trial Proceedings Tips from the Bench October 16, The Honorable Brian Murphy (PTAB) Louis W. Beardell, Jr. (Morgan Lewis & Bockius) Michael.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association PTAB Update: IPR & CBM Sponsored by the Japan Patent Office Ron Harris, The Harris Firm.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Update Statistics based first three years of AIA filings 3,655 petitions –3,277 (89.7%) inter partes review (IPR) –368 (10%)
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.
TOM ENGELLENNER Pepper Hamilton, LLP IP in Japan Committee Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. October, 2015 USPTO Rule Changes and IPR Procedures.
Chris Fildes FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C. IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, October 20, 2015 USPTO PILOT PROGRAMS 1 © AIPLA 2015.
Peter C. Schechter Vice-Chair, AIPPI-US Div. of AIPLA Partner, Osha Liang LLP Post-Issuance Review Proceedings: Update & Trends in IPR & PGR 1 © AIPLA.
Patent Fee Proposal Patent Public Advisory Committee Hearing November 19, 2015.
1 1 American Intellectual Property Law Association Inter Partes Review: Recent Cases STEVEN F. MEYER AIPLA IP in Japan Committee Annual Pre-Meeting October.
Derivation Proceedings Gene Quinn Patent Attorney IPWatchdog.com March 27 th, 2012.
Patent Reexamination: Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Reexamination and Litigation.
IEEE Region 6 Conference on Intellectual Property, Licensing, and Capital Flow Keith D. Grzelak, Chair IEEE-USA IPC Chair IEEE-USA IP Professionals Chair.
Appeals From AIA Trials 35 U.S.C. § 141 – Final Written Decision must be appealed to the Federal Circuit File a Notice of Appeal with the Director of the.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 6 – Patent Owner Response 1.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 2 – The Petition 1. The Petition 2.
Using the Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) for Post Grant Pilot Applications How to identify relevant information in AIA proceedings at the Patent.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 9 – Final Written Decision and Appeal 1.
Recent Developments in Obtaining and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in Nanocomposites Michael P. Dilworth February 28, 2012.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 3 – The Patent Owner Preliminary Response 1.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 11 – Bio/Pharma Issues 1.
Omer/LES International/
Inter Partes Review and District Court
The America Invents Act: Five Years Later November 10, 2016 Jessica L
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 1 – PTAB Basics and Procedure
U. S. District Court Perspective on Patent Adjudication Barbara M. G
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 12 – PTAB Popularity and Reasons
Patent Practice in View Of PTAB AIA Proceedings
POST Grant RevieW UPDATES
CBM/PGR Differences Differences in time periods of availability, parties who have standing, grounds of challenge available, standards of review, and.
Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge January 25, 2018
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Mark Wine June 6, 2014
Mark P. Wine Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP June 6, 2014
PTAB Bootcamp: Nuts and Bolts of IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs
Karl Renner Dorothy Whelan Chris Marchese
Prosecution Luncheon Patent March 2017
SAS Institute v. Iancu SAS appeals arguing § 318 requires deciding patentability of all claims challenged ComlimentSoft sues SAS for patent infringement.
IPRs: Coordination & Estoppel
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 4 – The Institution Decision
Which graph should I use?
Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association
PTAB Bar Association Conference—March 2, 2017
Which graph do I use and why?
DATA TABLES.
Presentation transcript:

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Statistics 2/29/2016

4625 Total AIA Petitions* 4181 423 Narrative: 90% 9% 21 1% Cumulative from 09/16/2012 4181 90% 423 9% Narrative: This pie chart shows the total number of cumulative AIA petitions filed to date broken out by trial type (i.e., IPR, CBM, and PGR). 21 1% *Data current as of: 2/29/2016 Total IPR Petitions Total CBM Petitions Total PGR Petitions

Number of AIA Petitions Filed by Fiscal Year by Type IPR CBM PGR 1737 Narrative: This bar graph depicts the number of AIA petitions filed each fiscal year, with each bar showing the filings for that fiscal year by trial type (i.e., IPR, CBM, and PGR). *Data current as of: 2/29/2016 1310 603 177 149 2 11 8 41 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016*

Number of PGR Petitions F3iled b3y Month* Number of IPR Petitions Filed by Month* Number of CBM Petitions Filed by Month* 300 50 45 184 159 179 177 164 182 40 200 143131 131139145 165 117 136 106 35 26 120 131138 132 96 30 22 21 116 102 100 25 20 15 10 5 19 14 16 16 15 14 16 76 12 10 13 13 100 54 6 7 9 9 11 10 12 6 5 5 3 Number of PGR Petitions F3iled b3y Month* 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number of TOTAL Petitions Filed by Month* 240 200 190 195 192 193 174 177 176 180 157150 142 145146 141 142144 150 160 120 80 40 126 116 115 123 117 98 99 66 Narrative: These line graphs display the number of IPR, CBM, and PGR petitions filed each month and the total number of all petitions filed each month from the effective date of the AIA trial provisions. *Data current as of: 2/29/2016

(Technology Breakdown) (Technology Breakdown) 652 Total AIA Petitions in FY 16* (Technology Breakdown) 1897 Total AIA Petitions in FY 15* (Technology Breakdown) 443 23% 90 5% 167 9% 171 26% 40 6% Narrative: This pie chart shows the total number of AIA petitions filed in the current fiscal year to date as well as the number and percentage of these petitions broken down by technology. 4 0% 1,193 63% 87 14% 1489 Total AIA Petitions in FY 14* (Technology Breakdown) 2 0% 352 54% 318 21% 114 8% 92 6% Electrical/Computer - TCs 2100, 2400, 2600, 2800 Mechanical/Business Method - TCs 3600, 3700 Chemical - TC 1700 Bio/Pharma - TC 1600 Design - TC 2900 962 65% 3 0% *Data current as of: 2/29/2016

IPR - Number of Patent Owner Preliminary Responses by Fiscal Year CBM - Number of Patent Owner Preliminary Responses by Fiscal Year 12 18 223 202 829 103 1,326 154 116 3 8 565 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016* Waived/Not Filed FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016* Waived/Not Filed Filed Filed PGR - Number of Patent Owner Preliminary Responses by Fiscal Year Narrative: These three sets of bar graphs show the number of patent owner preliminary responses filed and waived/not filed each fiscal year in IPR, CBM, and PGR proceedings. 1 6 5 *Data current as of: 2/29/2016 FY 2014 Filed FY 2015 FY 2016* Waived/Not Filed

PGR - Number of Decisions On Institution Per Fiscal IPR - Number of Decisions On Institution Per Fiscal Year by Outcome CBM - Number of Decisions On Institution Per Fiscal Year by Outcome 116 10 15 1 41 426 801 43 193 198 91 557 30 91 2 19 29 390 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016* Instituted Joinders Denials FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016* Instituted Joinders Denials PGR - Number of Decisions On Institution Per Fiscal Year by Outcome Narrative: These three sets of bar graphs show the number of decisions on institution by fiscal year broken out by trials instituted (including joinders) and trials denied in IPR, CBM, and PGR proceedings. A trial that is instituted in part is counted as an institution in these bar graphs. 7 3 1 *Data current as of: 2/29/2016 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016* Instituted Joinders Denials 7

IPR - Settlements CBM - Settlements PGR - Settlements 106 104 275 189 32 21 106 104 94 14 79 9 6 6 FY 2014 FY 2015 Settled Before Institution FY 2016* FY 2014 FY 2015 Settled Before Institution FY 2016* Settled After Institution Settled After Institution PGR - Settlements 2 Narrative: These three sets of bar graphs show settlements in AIA trials broken down by settlements that occurred prior to institution and settlements that occurred after institution in IPR, CBM, and PGR proceedings. *Data current as of: 2/29/2016 FY2014 FY 2015 Settled Before Institution FY 2016* Settled After Institution

Disposition of IPR Petitions Completed to Date* Narrative: This graph shows a stepping stone visual depicting the outcomes for all IPR petitions filed to-date that have reached a final disposition. 2731 Total Petitions 1372 Trials Not Instituted 1359 Trials Instituted 540 Terminated Before Institution Decision: 495 Settled 26 Dismissed 19 Request for Adverse Judgement 531 Terminated After Institution Decision: 390 Settled 14 Dismissed 127 Request for Adverse Judgement 828 Trials Completed (Reached Final Written Decision) 832 Petitions Denied 600 Trials All Instituted Claims Unpatentable (22% of Total Petitions, 44% of Trials Instituted, 73% of Final Written Decisions) 119 Trials Some Instituted Claims Unpatentable (4% of Total Petitions, 9% of Trials Instituted, 14% of Final Written Decisions) 109 Trials No Instituted Claims Unpatentable (4% of Total Petitions, 8% of Trials Instituted, 13% of Final Written Decisions) *Data current as of: 2/29/2016 9

Disposition of CBM Petitions Completed to Date* Narrative: This graph shows a stepping stone visual depicting the outcomes for all CBM petitions filed to-date that have reached a final disposition. 306 Total Petitions 151 Trials Not Instituted 155 Trials Instituted 46 Terminated Before Institution Decision: 44 Settled 2 Dismissed 0 Request for Adverse Judgement 63 Terminated After Institution Decision: 47 Settled 4 Dismissed 12 Request for Adverse Judgement 92 Trials Completed (Reached Final Written Decision) 105 Petitions Denied 75 Trials All Instituted Claims Unpatentable (25% of Total Petitions, 48% of Trials Instituted, 82% of Final Written Decisions) 14 Trials Some Instituted Claims Unpatentable (5% of Total Petitions, 9% of Trials Instituted, 15% of Final Written Decisions) 3 Trials No Instituted Claims Unpatentable (1% of Total Petitions, 2% of Trials Instituted, 3% of Final Written Decisions) *Data current as of: 2/29/2016 10

Disposition of PGR Petitions Completed to Date* Narrative: This graph shows a stepping stone visual depicting the outcomes for all PGR petitions filed to-date that have reached a final disposition. 3 Total Petitions 3 Trials Not Instituted Trials Instituted 2 Terminated Before Institution Decision: 2 Settled 0 Dismissed 0 Request for Adverse Judgement Terminated After Institution Decision: 0 Settled 0 Dismissed 0 Request for Adverse Judgement Trials Completed (Reached Final Written Decision) 1 Petitions Denied 0 Trials All Instituted Claims Unpatentable (0% of Total Petitions, 0% of Trials Instituted, 0% of Final Written Decisions) 0 Trials Some Instituted Claims Unpatentable (0% of Total Petitions, 0% of Trials Instituted, 0% of Final Written Decisions) 0 Trials No Instituted Claims Unpatentable (0% of Total Petitions, 0% of Trials Instituted, 0% of Final Written Decisions) *Data current as of: 2/29/2016 11

IPR Petitions Terminated to Date* Narrative: This visual contains four cylinders. The first cylinder shows the total number of claims available to be challenged in the IPR petitions filed. The second cylinder shows the number of claims actually challenged and not challenged. The third cylinder shows the number of claims on which trial was instituted and not instituted. The fourth cylinder shows the total number claims found unpatentable in a final written decision, the number of claims canceled or disclaimed by patent owner, the number of claims remaining patentable (not subject to a final written decision), and the number of claims found patentable by the PTAB. IPR Petitions Terminated to Date* 1828 Claims Found Patentable by PTAB in Final Written Decision 5479 Claims Remaining Patentable (Not Subject to Final Written Decision) 1957 Claims Cancelled or Disclaimed by Patent Owner 23398 Claims Challenged but Not Instituted 48599 Claims Not Challenged 90201 41602 Note: “Completed” petitions include terminations (before or after a decision on institution) due to settlement, request for adverse judgment, or dismissal; final written decisions; and decisions denying institution. 18204 8940 Total Number of Claims Available to be Challenged within 2731 Petitions Claims Found Unpatentable by PTAB in Final Written Decision *Data current as of: 2/29/2016 Claims Challenged Claims Instituted 12

CBM Petitions Terminated to Date* Narrative: This visual contains four cylinders. The first cylinder shows the total number of claims available to be challenged in the CBM petitions filed. The second cylinder shows the number of claims actually challenged and not challenged. The third cylinder shows the number of claims on which trial was instituted and not instituted. The fourth cylinder shows the total number claims found unpatentable in a final written decision, the number of claims canceled or disclaimed by patent owner, the number of claims remaining patentable (not subject to a final written decision), and the number of claims found patentable by the PTAB. CBM Petitions Terminated to Date* 62 Claims Found Patentable by PTAB in Final Written Decision 926 Claims Remaining Patentable (Not Subject to Final Written Decision) 195 Claims Cancelled or Disclaimed by Patent Owner 3377 Claims Challenged but Not Instituted 4895 Claims Not Challenged 11081 6186 Note: “Completed” petitions include terminations (before or after a decision on institution) due to settlement, request for adverse judgment, or dismissal; final written decisions; and decisions denying institution. 2809 1626 Total Number of Claims Available to be Challenged within 306 Petitions Claims Found Unpatentable by PTAB in Final Written Decision *Data current as of: 2/29/2016 Claims Challenged Claims Instituted 13

THANK YOU