Bio/pharma IPRs by the numbers

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Bio/pharma IPRs by the numbers

Figures discussed at the BIO International Convention reveal that bio/pharma IPRs at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board have a lower institution rate and lower claim-cancellation rate than for all IPRs

According to the USPTO’s latest statistics, there have been 108 PTAB petitions filed in the TC 1600 class covering bio/pharma patents. This is 8.1% of all petitions filed.

At the BIO International Convention, the USPTO’s Jackie Wright Bonilla provided further detail on how the TC 1600 class stacks up to others.

She revealed the TC 1600 class has a 64% institution rate for inter partes review (IPR) petitions. This is lower than the 76% institution rate for all IPRs.

The rate of claims being cancelled by the Board in pharma IPRs is also below the average. The TC 1600 class has had 28 final written decisions. In these, 75.5% of instituted claims were cancelled (309 claims cancelled and 100 claims found patentable) and 71.7% of challenged claims were cancelled.

In comparison, in the 323 final written decisions in all IPRs 82.5% of instituted claims have been cancelled and 75.3% of challenged claims have been cancelled.

In the same session, Sterne Kessler’s Eric Steffe gave an overview of PTAB cases that have been appealed to the Federal Circuit. He said 141 appeals from final IPR/CBM decisions were docketed at the Federal Circuit. Of these, 104 (75%) are by patent owners, 18 (13%) are by petitioners and 19 (12%) are cross appeals by both parties,

Nine percent of the appeals are from the biotech/chemistry area, with 13 appeals. Nine of these are by patent owners and four are by petitioners, which Steffe said is “roughly mirroring other technologies in terms of who is making those appeals”.



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article