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

IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
Gift this article