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 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
Gift this article