IPR’s Limited Grounds Prove Challenging For Petitioners

The post-grant inter partes review (IPR) procedure was introduced in September 2012 as a replacement for inter partes reexams, and as a faster, cheaper alternative to litigation.¹ In an IPR, a petitioner can challenge a patent by asserting that the patent is invalid because prior art patents or printed publications anticipate or render obvious the patent claims.

A year after the procedure's introduction, questions about its implementation and efficacy are starting to be answered. From a potential petitioner's standpoint, early results provide reason for optimism. For one thing, the statutorily quick IPR timeframe appears to be working as advertised—final decisions are being issued within a year of the decision to institute the procedure. In addition, roughly 70 percent of the IPR petitions filed have been granted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and of those, the board has agreed to review about 95 percent of the claims raised.